On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 21:57 +0100, Denis Leroy wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Christopher Stone wrote: > >> On 3/20/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Why does games SIG require a separate mailing list? > >> > >> For the same reason any SIG should have their own list. > > > > That is not a good reason consider no SIG except games has its own > > mailing list. > > > > If it is packaging details it should be in fedora-packaging list. Other > > details could be in fedora-devel list. In other words what do you > > discuss in fedora-games list that doesnt fit into any existing other > > Fedora lists? > > To me the Games SIG is a fantastic example of a "SIG done right": a very > dynamic and active group that essentially created their own > sub-community. The smaller size makes it easier to define games-specific > packaging standard, contributes to faster package reviews, and so on. I > don't know about "should", but it seems to me if SIG members feel they > need their own list, why not. > +1. A follow-on question: does the list help strengthen the feeling of community for the SIG members? It's not all about technical questions and answers, after all. Having a camaraderie with fellow packagers is also a worthwhile goal. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
