On Thursday 19 October 2006 12:04, Matthew Miller wrote: > So RHL has been the hold-up there? In that case, *definitely* time to end > RHL support; RHL != Fedora anyway. My thoughts too. I keep trying to be nice to these people, and they never help out. So screw 'em. </personal opinion> > I really, really think the bugzilla process should be moved to be more > "normal", too -- one bug # per release, even if the issue is identical in > FC3 and FC4. (That's why there's the "clone bug" bugzilla feature.) Absolutely. This works much better when the update tool can automanage bugs, so that each gets closed when the update goes out, and we're not so tied to every release must be fixed for the bug to be closed. (note, there can be a top level "tracker" but for the CVE itself, and individual bugs are cloned for each vuln Fedora release) > > C) Move to Core style updates process. Spin a possible update, toss it > > in -testing. If nobody says boo after a period of time, release the darn > > thing. If somebody finds it to be broken, fix it and resubmit. > > Yes. Better this than nothing. > > > Somewhere in there convince Luke Macken to do the work to get a Fedora > > Update tool available for use externally that does the boring stuff like > > generate the email with the checksums and with the subpackage list and > > all that boring stuff. It could even handle moving the bug to 'MODIFIED' > > when it goes in updates-testing, and finally to CLOSED when it goes to > > release. > > Yes. How much work will this convincing take? Does he accept bribes? I think he does. A lot of it is a time issue. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Attachment:
pgplClH2Xlrp8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
