On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:20:41 +0100 pertusus@xxxxxxx (Patrice Dumas) wrote: > Hello, Sorry for the delay here. I meant to reply to this sooner. > I think that the PackageMaintainers/Policy pages should be under > FESCo responsibility, such that > * they are updated when policies are updated > * new policies are added > > FESCo should not necessarily take care of the actual writing, but at > least oblige packagers who proposed a new policy that was accepted to > update the Policy page, and similarly when a policy is changed. I would agree. Perhaps we can address it at the next meeting. > I think that FESCo should also oblige > Infra/Releng/documentation/BugZappers (and other similar groups) to > modify the Policy pages when they introduce changes that modify > policies. I don't know how exactly is FESCo aware of what changes in > other groups, but at least should try to act such that packagers are > aware of policies that are important for them. This could simply be > redirections to pages maintained by those other groups. Yes, as that page is now. > Examples of policies that may be (or not) missing are release notes, > bugzilla handling, features. And True. > PackageMaintainers/MaintainerResponsibility should certainly be a > policy too. Yes, although I don't know if that was finished and formally approved... > Of course FESCo is somehow responsible for all that is in the wiki, > but for policies it is even more important since these are meant to be > mandatory things. > > However, currently the Policies pages are in a very bad state, which > is pretty bad, in my opinion, for new packagers, especially those who > don't read through all that goes along in fedora-devel-list. Agreed. I removed the kmod section there as it no longer applies. > Pat kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
