PackageMaintainers/Policy/EOL pages and FESCo responsibilities
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:20:41 +0100
email@example.com (Patrice Dumas) wrote:
Sorry for the delay here. I meant to reply to this sooner.
> I think that the PackageMaintainers/Policy pages should be under
> FESCo responsibility, such that
> * they are updated when policies are updated
> * new policies are added
> FESCo should not necessarily take care of the actual writing, but at
> least oblige packagers who proposed a new policy that was accepted to
> update the Policy page, and similarly when a policy is changed.
I would agree. Perhaps we can address it at the next meeting.
> I think that FESCo should also oblige
> Infra/Releng/documentation/BugZappers (and other similar groups) to
> modify the Policy pages when they introduce changes that modify
> policies. I don't know how exactly is FESCo aware of what changes in
> other groups, but at least should try to act such that packagers are
> aware of policies that are important for them. This could simply be
> redirections to pages maintained by those other groups.
Yes, as that page is now.
> Examples of policies that may be (or not) missing are release notes,
> bugzilla handling, features. And
> PackageMaintainers/MaintainerResponsibility should certainly be a
> policy too.
Yes, although I don't know if that was finished and formally
> Of course FESCo is somehow responsible for all that is in the wiki,
> but for policies it is even more important since these are meant to be
> mandatory things.
> However, currently the Policies pages are in a very bad state, which
> is pretty bad, in my opinion, for new packagers, especially those who
> don't read through all that goes along in fedora-devel-list.
Agreed. I removed the kmod section there as it no longer applies.
fedora-devel-list mailing list