How should we handle errata? Since this is email, I think a resend to f-announce-l with a subject: "[errata] Fedora Weekly News Issue 84" ... then trim the email to just the errata'd section, showing the original, then put in the correction. I think disagreements about our opinions are not worthy of an errata. A different interpretation of the facts is not worthy of an errata. A factual error is worthy of an errata. FWIW, the "to rebuild or not rebuild" situation I found very confusing the entire time; I could not get a handle on the technical details enough to decide. On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 10:12 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote: > FYI... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Apr 23, 2007 1:24 AM > Subject: Regarding the section "Mass Package Rebuilds - Papering Over > Cracks or Shaking the Tree?" on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue84 > To: Thomas Chung <tchung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rahulsundaram@xxxxxxxxx, > Karsten Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Hi, > > I found my name near a section where I think the text is misleading > (read: totally wrong): > > "ThorstenLeemhuis was against one of the decisions made in the meeting: > the rebuilding en masse of all packages at Test2 release time." > > The second part of that is not wrong; from the log of the meeting > referred to: > > "In the future we should consider a mass rebuild of all packages around, > but no later than test2" > > "Consider a mass rebuild" and "rebuilding en masse of all packages at > Test2 release time" are two totally different things. > > Further: I'm all for "considering a mass rebuild of all packages around, > but no later than test2". > > Please fix (in a ideal world: in a way that readers that have read it > see that something was corrected after the stuff was published) and > please be a bit more careful in the future. Thanks! > > CU > thl > > -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
