On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 18:31 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Michael Schwendt schrieb: > > On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:42:35 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> * FESCo > >> * The old FESCo didn't work to well. A lot of members weren't very > >> active. A lot of stuff was still discussed, but a lot of things didn't > >> get done. Some things were discussed and agreed on, but not documented > >> in the wiki. > > There ought to be a web page with announcements. The history of decisions > > made by FESCo. > > I think the FESCo meeting summaries should have a section annoucements. > > But I oppose a web page with a decision history. Decisions should be > documented at a proper place where they belong (for exmplae the > dead.package mechanism should be documented on the extras-cvs-faq page. > Or in a maintainer guide). They need to be documented there in any case > an maintaining two places is ridiculous IMHO. > > Note: Yes, for some decisions there might be no proper place. Creating a > special page for them might be a good idea. +1 > >> * Co-Maintainership > >> * This is IMO one of the biggest areas we should work on soon > > It is unimportant. > > It is important to work on... > > > Co-maintenance is possible for a long time. > > ..because it's not used. > Not entirely the case. There are those that co-maintain packages already. Ville and I do this for tla. Admittedly, that is a fairly low-maintenance package though. > >> * proper Rebuild policy for new releases (or automated rebuilds?) -- > >> or we want to discuss this each time a new release comes up and decide > >> on a case-by-case basis? Or simply rebuild all of Extras each time all > >> of Core is rebuild? > > Well, when Core is rebuilt due to important changes/improvements in GCC, > > would it be possible that FESCo is notified about that? > > f13 announced the last mass-rebuilds on fedora-maintainers. And jeremy > is in FESCo, I'm sure he'll poke us. > > > Or if somebody > > within FESCo learns about such a rebuild, that there will be an official > > announcement about what FE packagers should/must do? > > I'm not sure I understand you correctly. It for sure will be announced > when FESCo agrees on a mass-rebuild. Maybe we should revisit how Extras rebuilds are done too. Personally, I like the way they're handled in Core. A single person starts it and maintainers email him if they _do not_ want their package rebuilt for whatever reason. IMHO, that provides the advantage that the number of cats to herd is fewer. > > Also non-sponsors might be interested in this feature as well. > > >[...] > >> * fedora-devel-list, fedora-extras-list, fedora-maintainers -- these > >> multiple lists get confusing, some things that are discussed on > >> fedora-maintainers-list would be better suited for fedora-extras-list > >> AFICS; > > It's not the confusion that hurts, but the insane amount of cross-posting. > > Both AFAICS. > > I'd prefer if fedora-maintainers would be more like an moderated, > non-discussion announce-list to inform all the maintainers about > important things. Discussion on the other two lists. Actually, I disagree. Having a list for Extras and a list for Core just segregates things more. This is a case where I think we need cohesion. We're already talking about doing releases differently to be more like Core, and various other Core<->Extras merge type issues, so having a single list for all package maintainers to discuss is a step towards that goal. josh -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
