I like it. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Warren Togami wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 11:53 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > >> It's not a particularly ballsy decision. It just needs to get made. :) > >> > > > > I guess I'm missing what the big controversy is. > > > > We'd be best off producing messages in such a way and using such > > technology that we can easily convert them into N different formats. Or > > better yet, that someone else can for themselves. > > > > 1) Split fedora-announce-list > ----------------------------- > Make fedora-announce-list into a low traffic, high relevance list of > only announcements. > > 2) Redirect package update announcements onto its own list > ---------------------------------------------------------- > fedora-package-announce exists for people who want to receive update > announcements of any Fedora package. People can login to change their > subscription to include or exclude different channels within > fedora-package-announce. So you could ask for only Fedora 5 (including > FC5, FE5 and FL5). > > This package announce list only temporarily will be the only solution. > When the next objective is achieved, then people will have other options > to view the same information. > > 3) Make package announcements backed by a database > -------------------------------------------------- > We should have all of this information stored in a database. Generated > from this database are a number of both push & pull representations like: > - Package update and security advisory list announcements > - RSS feeds > - Canonical package update website (links from RSS feed point here) > - Metadata for pirut and pup > > http://people.redhat.com/wtogami/temp/fedora-updates.png > Luke Macken's previous work on the Fedora Update tracking system that we > currently use only internally give us a head start in these goals. It > would be fairly easy to build upon this existing foundation, but only > after we achieve a few other objectives. (Putting the Fedora Updates > system in the public requires some design considerations for proper > handling of Embargo and possibly other aspects related to the Fedora > distribution merge.) > > Thoughts? > > Warren Togami > wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board >
