On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 00:12 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Joshua Wulf wrote: > Thanks Joshua, > > > I think that Jeff and Chris are referring to this: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471 > > > IIUC, this boils down to: > 1) Publican creates a different documentation package for each Fedora > Release as it considers them to be separate documents. ie: > Fedora-10-Security-Guide, Fedora-11-Security-Guide. > > 2) This means a new package review for each documentation package each > release. > > If you're willing to go through a new review each release, there's no > problem. And that's okay for certain documents (i.e. Release Notes, User Guide,...) that are tied directly to a specific release of Fedora. The Security Guide, however, is not. I'd much prefer the Security Guide being just that, the Fedora Security Guide and not have to go through review for each release. So while it might be nice to include a release number in the package for some documents it is not appropriate for all. Publican does not provide that ability to not use the release number and if it did, and there were writers who wanted to use the release numbering, I would have already petitioned the FPC on behalf of the Docs Project to make the change. So, no, the problem isn't with the FPC's decisions or current rules. Eric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
