On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:52:57PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 23.8.2018 22:43, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >Hi community,
> >
> >We've traditionally used the wiki for Change proposals because it's
> >the tool we had. But, it's not necessarily well-suited to the purpose.
> >But now we have Pagure, which can help address some of the
> >shortcomings of using the wiki: poor scriptability, no reporting, and
> >a lot of copy/paste.
>
> Good idea!
>
> >So I've come up with a plan that would use Pagure instead:
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bcotton/ UsePagureForChanges
>
> > 6. FESCo votes on change.
>
> On the Pagure ticket with the change or in a separate FESCo Pagure ticket?
I think we should vote in the Change bug. I don't see advantages to
opening a new ticket.
> >You can read the full details on the wiki page above, but the general
> >idea is that we won't change the policy for Changes, just how we store
> >and manipulate them. My intent is to make it nearly seamless for the
> >community while giving us a platform for building on the process in
> >the future. Note that this would run parallel to Bugzilla for a
> >release or two and then replace Bugzilla for Changes tracking.
>
> The good thing about Bugzilla trackers is that they can be used
> as... Bugzilla trackers. I mean you can block/depend other bugs on
> it.
>
> See for example http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=PYTHON37
> and the dependent bugs. Of course, this might be relevant to some
> kind of Changes only, so the Bugzilla tracker can be optional, but
> I'd rather keep it as part of the process.
I think we might want to make it an optional element. If the Change
needs a tracking bug, create it, otherwise not. I think most Changes
don't do any real tracking in bugzilla, except to change the bug as
"done" at some point.
One more thing that I didn't see explicitly mentioned in the proposal
is the fact that Change pages are also documentation, fairly widely
accessed, also long after the Change has been implemented. For this,
the fact that the Change page show no context by default is an advantage.
I wonder if we could request an enhancement to pagure to have a view
where just the main text is shown, without the side bar, comments,
headers, etc.
It'd be great if we could end this practice by having our documentation updated as a part of the change. Consumers of our software shouldn't need to know to check what will feel like "random" wiki pages to many of them for more docs.
regards,
bex
Also, it should be clarified if Change owners should edit the original
text.
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________ List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
org/archives/list/devel@lists. fedoraproject.org/message/ VSTCNQXOVJWSOJQBE6CXAIJ3XUMKFV DM/
Brian (bex) Exelbierd | bexelbie@xxxxxxxxxx | bex@xxxxxxxxx
Fedora Community Action & Impact Coordinator
@bexelbie | http://www.winglemeyer.org
Fedora Community Action & Impact Coordinator
@bexelbie | http://www.winglemeyer.org
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
