Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 16:23 +0200:
> On 13.08.2017 16:11, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > Our policy should reflect our minimum requirements. They do not replace judgement. The problem with our current policy and this proposal is it still requires us to adjust the policy on the fly when our better judgement tells us we need to push out a release.
> Good point. And the best example of that are the recent two releases.
> +1 for assuming the RM is rational and responsible.
That's exactly what I was trying to get at with the use of SHOULD's: to
simultaneously express best practice on the one hand, and give the
community and the RM the leeway to release without meeting that bar if
circumstances merit doing so.
For example, the proposal does not _require_ having both a Linux and a
non-Linux unix signature; it merely says that it is preferable to have
signatures from varied platforms than from homogenous platforms.
I do think there's value in explicitly documenting best practice when we
have fewer developers, since that means there's less opportunity for
"informal" inter-generation knowledge transfer.
Received on 2017-08-13 20:25:16 CEST