On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:01:29PM +0200, Till Maas wrote: >On Fri May 29 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> I don't see a problem. > >Imho outdated content reduces the quality of the wiki, therefore there should >be some garbage collection. > >> If the Feature owner cares enough to keep proposing it, then FESCo will >> keep reviewing it. Technical items change over time. Perhaps the >> VirtualBox module will make it into the upstream kernel and the Feature >> will be viable. Or perhaps a future FESCo will revist kmods. > >Did you look at the content of the feature page? Even in the very unlikely Yes, I did. >case that it may be included in Fedora in the future, Fedora will probably be >the last distribution to include it, so it is also very unlikely that it even >meats the Feature criteria. And if it does, there are only four sentences in >the Feature page, that were not in the template. Yep. >> If the Feature owner doesn't care, then they can delete the page. Either >> way, I don't see what the problem is with having it sit in the >> FeaturePageIncomplete category. > >It seems more to me, that the Feature owner does not care, because the package >is very incomplete and I got no response from my comment in December 2008 that >Virtualbox won't make it into Fedora. Btw. how does the Feature owner delete That seems to be a simple case of a page requiring wiki gardening. Seriously, if we have to have a FESCo policy to allow the deletion of stale wiki pages (Feature or not), then we have gone wrong somewhere. So I suggest we just mark it for deletion and if the Feature owner cares he'll unmark it. >the page? It seems to me, that this is not easily possible using the wiki >interface. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Editing#Deleting_Pages josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
