#37: Should we need i18n-sig fas group?
--------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: pnemade | Owner: i18n@…
Type: meeting | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Resolution:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
--------------------+-----------------------
Changes (by tagoh):
* status: new => assigned
Comment:
following up from today's meeting:
Replying to [ticket:37 pnemade]:
> some points to discuss
> 1) Do we need i18n-sig fas group?
* might help with sharing package maintenance load
* might help for updating a large number of i18n packages together
* like huge updates for ibus?
* if we move to i18n-sig, we don't need i18n-team group anymore
> 2) What should it be used for? CC'ing on i18n bugs, group commit access
on i18n packages
> 3) Adding all i18n package maintainers to i18n-sig
> 4) Should this be kept small? ( I mean no fonts packages added to i18n-
sig) Thus we endup with 162 packages.
>
> As of today https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/i18n-team we
got 263 packages there of which 101 fonts packages.
the discussion is postponed later to see more input.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/i18n/ticket/37#comment:2>
Fedora Internationalization <http://fedorahosted.org/i18n/>
Fedora i18n Project
--
i18n mailing list
i18n@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
