On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 10:54 -0500, James Laska wrote: > > It seems right that bugs aren't mentioned in the guides or release > > notes, as that helps reduce clutter and centralize fast-changing > > information. Major bugs are fixed before release, and minor bugs > are > > documented online in Common Bugs or Bugzilla, since the status of > fixes > > and workarounds is dynamic. If the slow-changing documents all link > to > > Common Bugs, that should work pretty well, unless you think people > > without network should have access to "known issues" in their copy > of > > the distribution. > > I don't hear a lot of complaints about that now, and I think it's > reasonable to have live information require network access to retrieve > it. But should this become a big issue, the solution you identify > seems > reasonable. I agree that it's probably not worth fixing this, it is quite a bit of work. Though Mandriva (which I take as a model for the common_bugs work) does ship a static copy of the Errata on disc images. > > That could be fixed by including a snapshot of > > "Common Bugs" in the fedora-release-notes RPM. There doesn't seem > to be > > much point in updating it after the release except for re-spins > (which > > are unofficial). > > Adam can say more here, but I believe updates do happen after the > release. For example, if a day-0 or later package update resolves an > issue on the Common_F#_Bugs page, the wiki is updated to direct users > to > the applicable bodhi update. Yes, indeed, this happens, theoretically at least. I haven't quite done it as proactively as I'd like for F12, but I have updated several issues, and the instructions are there in the page source for anyone else who wants to help. I intend to do another update sweep on the page soon -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
