On 12/30/06, Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Who cares? Three months in the future you should still be able to spot questionable packaging techniques which require a closer look.
Who cares? I care, and I since I've no authority to speak for anyone else, that should suffice. I want to make sure I'm making my best effort that I am watching out for the specific things which the people in the packaging committee have reached a consensus on as best practises. Even the nit-picky details over things like what vendor string to use in a desktop file. I frankly don't give a flying flip personally about details like that, but I value the packaging committees efforts, and I have no desire to de-value the time they spend worrying about the details by simply ignoring the policy guidance amendments they spin up. All I am saying is that there is room for improvement in communicating evolving guidance. A checklist with effective-as-of timestamping is just one implementation mechanism, that would help me keep better track of policy changes. The key idea there isn't checklist per-say, but the timestamping of sections of the guidance at some reasonable level of granularity, so that I can quickly find out what's been updated since the last time I submitted a package or ran a review. If members of the packaging committee would like to see packagers and reviewers, like myself, make submissions and reviews with the most up-to-date guidance in mind, then it would behoove them to find a way to encapsulate granular chronologically sorted effective-as-off timestamping of specific policy sections.
All that matters is whether a package contains anything nasty prior to approval or after approval (when the packager can reintroduce severe packaging bugs unless this is noticed via commits-list).
If that is all that matters to you, then fine, I'm not mandating or asking you to do more than the minimum requirements. All I am asking is for the people who are writing the more detailed best practises guidance work with me, and anyone else who wants to follow the best practise guidance, so we can more easily keep up with the evolution of the guidance as individual items evolve. -jef -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
