On Sunday 03 June 2007 09:22:57 Hans de Goede wrote: > So please write a documents how updates should be managed / release > engineered (and the current bodhi FAQ-ish document is not that IMHO), get > this document discussed and ratified, and then see what this means for > bodhi in the long run. > > For now we can use bodhi as is, as we need something, but for the future I > would like to see a proper decission making process surrounding updates > policy, with all the steps taken in the right order (and thus with the tool > implementing the policy coming last, after the policy has first been > written on paper, discussed and approved by the appropriate gremia). I'm not comfortable with just writing a document. In Core, we had a tool, and pretty much everything was left up to maintainers and what the tool would allow. Now, I would love to have discussions with interested parties (including yourself) on how policy should work so that the tool can adjust. The current tool is largely a mirror of what we were using internally (with a couple things missing yet) as we had nothing else for Luke to work with. There was either the internal tool, or the policyless uncontrolled chaos of Extras. We need to come up with something. Please join the next Release Engineering meeting to help us discuss this. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpdvo4qeKQo0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
