On 5/9/07, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx> wrote:
A tracker bug sounds like a good idea actually, other then that not too much rules please. (/me starts yelling: "to much bureaucracy"). Seriously, the Games SIG works well, really well if you ask me, but I wouldn't want to make what we do compulsory for other SIGs. Like wise I know the KDE SIG has weekly IRC meetings, if that works for them fine, but it doesn't sound like something which I envision the Games SIG doing soon.
What we really need is some guidance for the package submission process, which encourages new packages (and even old packagers) to review the list of SIGs and make a determination as to whether the new package submission should come to the SIGs attention at package submission time. For example I may at some point actually package a game...maybe....but I'm most likely forget that a Games SIG exists by that point. But if there's a broken out bullet item for the Contributor AND the reviewer in the submission/review process guidance to review the SIG list (and set the appropriate tracker bug if desired) that would be a really good reminder to keep SIGs in mind. Which reminds me, now that I'm in my new job I really need to touch base with the scientific SIG. -jef"hopefully someone else will beat me to it and package up londonlaw, so I do not have to sully myself with packaging a game"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
