On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:59:52 +0100 Jochen Schmitt <Jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Kevin Fenzi schrieb: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RenamingPackages > > > After a first look on this proposel I have some question and comments: > > 1.) Is the approving process the same as if I submit a new package > request. No. This is only for renaming existing packages already reviewed and in the collection. > > 2.) Because the CVSAdmin request need a bugzilla ticket, why we don't > doing the relating > approving process in the same ticket. We could. That would be more overhead however. > 3.) If we not need a full review process, I think anyone should > approve that the right > Provides/Requires statement existing in the new package. A lightwight > approvement > process may has the advance that the maintaining process of an > existing package will not > delayed for a long time by the renaming process. Agreed. > 4.) Each people which has the right to done a normal package review > should be abled > to approve a renamed package. Also agreed. > Best Regards: > > Jochen Schmitt 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
