FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-14-2011, 06:06 PM
Guillermo Gómez
 
Default Improving the Spins process

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jared K. Smith
<jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> 2) While discussing some of the shortcomings of using wiki categories
> to track progress on Spins, we also talked about the Features process
> and how it too might benefit from using a ticketing system to track
> progress of features. *As I understand it, Robyn (as the Fedora
> Program Manager) already opens a FESCo ticket for each feature (so
> that it's on the FESCo agenda), but uses wiki categories to track the
> state (proposed, accepted, rejected, etc.) of each feature. *Is there
> interest in moving the features process over to using tickets for
> keeping track of the feature state, and keeping the discussion about
> the feature in one easy-to-find location, rather than having it
> scattered across talk pages, wiki pages, and FESCo meeting minutes?
>

I believe and practice the use of a tracking system for my work
everyday, is a great thing to have, im a heavy redmine user and people
that know me personally is aware about this fact. I honestly believes
all those process can better tracked, documented, and structured using
such kind of integrated tools instead of trying to do it by combining
wiki + mailing + trac (plus the coding needed to integrate them, it
also makes it easier to maintain).

I wish the actual trac instance gets updated sometime soon and get all
those nice features i already enjoy with redmine (such as in
rpmdev.proyectofedora.org - latam projects).

--
Ing.Guillermo Gomez S.
Fedora Board Member A4
http://gomix.fedora-ve.org << this is a redmine just in case u never
visited my site previously...
http://www.neotechgw.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 10-14-2011, 08:40 PM
Jon Stanley
 
Default Improving the Spins process

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jared K. Smith
<jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> 1) We discussed whether the desktop media should go through the same
> process, essentially treating it just like we treat the rest of the
> spins. *This would give us a more organized way to review the
> kickstart file, make sure the design team is happy with the artwork,
> etc. just like we would for spins. *I think this is probably a good
> idea, but would love more feedback from the desktop folks and the
> design team before making a final decision on this. *The intention is
> not to add a layer of bureaucracy, but to simply help add some
> structure to what is currently fairly unstructured.

I obviously can't speak for the desktop or design teams, but in
general, I think that this proposal is sound. I've always found it odd
that what the desktop team does is not subject to the same review that
we put any other spin through - I fail to see how they are
important/different/whatever from the rest of the spins that we
produce. Same sentiment goes for the KDE spin.
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 10-14-2011, 09:41 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Improving the Spins process

Jon Stanley (jonstanley@gmail.com) said:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jared K. Smith
> <jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> > 1) We discussed whether the desktop media should go through the same
> > process, essentially treating it just like we treat the rest of the
> > spins. *This would give us a more organized way to review the
> > kickstart file, make sure the design team is happy with the artwork,
> > etc. just like we would for spins. *I think this is probably a good
> > idea, but would love more feedback from the desktop folks and the
> > design team before making a final decision on this. *The intention is
> > not to add a layer of bureaucracy, but to simply help add some
> > structure to what is currently fairly unstructured.
>
> I obviously can't speak for the desktop or design teams, but in
> general, I think that this proposal is sound. I've always found it odd
> that what the desktop team does is not subject to the same review that
> we put any other spin through - I fail to see how they are
> important/different/whatever from the rest of the spins that we
> produce. Same sentiment goes for the KDE spin.

Well, they're important becasue they have been the defined products that
we produce, outside of even the Spins process. (They're actually referred to
in the spins process as being separate bases that Spins can build on.)

Also, 'make sure the design team is happy with the artwork'? Maybe I'm
missing something, but I don't see that in the spins process anywhere as
something that spins go through.

Bill
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 10-14-2011, 10:04 PM
Jon Stanley
 
Default Improving the Spins process

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:

> Well, they're important becasue they have been the defined products that
> we produce, outside of even the Spins process. (They're actually referred to
> in the spins process as being separate bases that Spins can build on.)

While I agree that this is historically true, and had merit at some
point, I think that everything that we produce is in reality a "spin".
Either a spin used for installation, or a live spin. The reason that I
say this is that everything is produced with the same tools. Why not
have it use the same process - at a technical level, the products
aren't at all different.

> Also, 'make sure the design team is happy with the artwork'? Maybe I'm
> missing something, but I don't see that in the spins process anywhere as
> something that spins go through.

While I don't see it on the page now that I look, I had been under the
impression that design team signoff was part of the process.
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 10-15-2011, 12:21 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Improving the Spins process

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 06:04:48PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, 'make sure the design team is happy with the artwork'? Maybe I'm
> > missing something, but I don't see that in the spins process anywhere as
> > something that spins go through.
>
> While I don't see it on the page now that I look, I had been under the
> impression that design team signoff was part of the process.
>
It was in the "old revised policy" but that was unpopular and didn't seem to
be workable. So I think we're working on something new now.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 10-17-2011, 08:21 PM
"Jared K. Smith"
 
Default Improving the Spins process

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jared K. Smith
<jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 2) While discussing some of the shortcomings of using wiki categories
> to track progress on Spins, we also talked about the Features process
> and how it too might benefit from using a ticketing system to track
> progress of features. *As I understand it, Robyn (as the Fedora
> Program Manager) already opens a FESCo ticket for each feature (so
> that it's on the FESCo agenda), but uses wiki categories to track the
> state (proposed, accepted, rejected, etc.) of each feature. *Is there
> interest in moving the features process over to using tickets for
> keeping track of the feature state, and keeping the discussion about
> the feature in one easy-to-find location, rather than having it
> scattered across talk pages, wiki pages, and FESCo meeting minutes?

It appears I've confused at least a few people with this idea, so let
me see if I can clarify a few points here:

* I'm _not_ suggesting that we get rid of Feature pages on the wiki.
I'm only suggesting that we move away from use wiki categories for
tracking the state of the feature, and track them using a custom field
in a ticketing system such as Trac.
* As the Fedora Program Manager already creates a ticket in FESCo's
Trac instance, this seems like the ideal place to track the feature
state.
* While this idea spun out (sorry for the terrible pun) from the Spins
process discussion in Milan, it's really independent of the Spins
proposal.

If you have other questions or concerns, please let me know!

--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 10-17-2011, 09:20 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Improving the Spins process

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 04:21:51PM -0400, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jared K. Smith
> <jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > 2) While discussing some of the shortcomings of using wiki categories
> > to track progress on Spins, we also talked about the Features process
> > and how it too might benefit from using a ticketing system to track
> > progress of features. *As I understand it, Robyn (as the Fedora
> > Program Manager) already opens a FESCo ticket for each feature (so
> > that it's on the FESCo agenda), but uses wiki categories to track the
> > state (proposed, accepted, rejected, etc.) of each feature. *Is there
> > interest in moving the features process over to using tickets for
> > keeping track of the feature state, and keeping the discussion about
> > the feature in one easy-to-find location, rather than having it
> > scattered across talk pages, wiki pages, and FESCo meeting minutes?
>
> It appears I've confused at least a few people with this idea, so let
> me see if I can clarify a few points here:
>
> * I'm _not_ suggesting that we get rid of Feature pages on the wiki.
> I'm only suggesting that we move away from use wiki categories for
> tracking the state of the feature, and track them using a custom field
> in a ticketing system such as Trac.
> * As the Fedora Program Manager already creates a ticket in FESCo's
> Trac instance, this seems like the ideal place to track the feature
> state.
[...snip...]

Thanks Jared, I was one of the confused :-) and this clears it right
up. While there is a stable and well-tested extension you can get for
MediaWiki that does better notification for category changes
(addition/deletion of pages in the category), but that doesn't solve
problems such as people not knowing the right category names.
Tracking status through a ticket system we're already using seems
reasonable to me.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:14 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org