Wiki Pages that need love

[Stephen John Smoogen]

Thanks Patrice for this help.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:07:40AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:EPEL
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL -- no changes I can see.
>
> I psopose to merge a simple text after 'EPEL for Contributors', see
> below.
>

Agreed.

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/About -- does this make sense to
>> how EPEL is being used these days?
>
> It doesn't do harm, in my opinion. I find this page well written and
> think that it can be kept as is.
>

Thanks I sometimes parse things really oddly so wanted to see if it
made sense for people.

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/AskForFedoraPackageInEPEL -- seems ok.
>
> Right.
>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/CommunicationPlan -- not sure this
>> is current.
>
> I don't really see the interest of this page, it is largely duplicate of
> the About page, and I think that the text is less clear. The faq links
> to an entry in that page (ISV), though. What is interesting should be
> merged in About, in my opinion.

I agree.

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus -- not current.
>
> I think that the list of fedora packagers not interested should be kept
> and merged in the main EPEL/ContributorStatus page, the other list
> removed, except for Ville entry which would also be in
> EPEL/ContributorStatus. Then there should be a way to query from the
> database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
> mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> should certainly be shortened.

I would like to see this page somehow automated.. which ithink you are
doing. If its not automated, I think it should be removed.

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ -- rewrite time.
>
> I have read it, and I only found a reference to owners.list that should
> be changed, but otherwise I don't see what's wrong.
>

Ok.. I think its more of the layout. We could get some help from docs
on doing a FAQ better.

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies -- update
>
> I suggest remomving the
> How will the repository actually look like?
> part since it is both wrong and unuseful.
>

Agreed.

> EPEL branching if Fedora maintainer does not react
> is covered in more detail elsewhere.
>
> I am not sure that this section fits here:
> Involve Employers: Packaging as a Job Duty
>
> Otherwise everything else looks good to me.
>

Ok. Thanks.

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/PackageMaintainer/GenericJobDescription
>> -- review please
>
> Looks good. I don't really get the interest of this page, but it is
> linked from many other docs, and I think that I have the background to
> comment about that page.

Ok I am not sure it was current with how package maintenance is
'defined' by say FESCO. I would prefer to have one 'definition' we
linked to versus many.

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ReleaseManagers -- update/rewrite.
>
> I think that this page should better be rewritten from scratch. It would
> be nice to have something about EPEL infrastructure, indeeed.
>

Yes I agee

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SIG combine with about?
>
> I don't think this page is needed anymore. I would propose instead to
> merge what is interesting in this page to the front EPEL page. The
> contact information is already here, the only missing information is how
> to join but it is so simple that it doesn't really requirers a specific
> page, I think that a short text right after 'EPEL for Contributors'
> should be enough, along:
>

Agreed.

> Joining EPEL s as simple as being part of Fedora (e.g. be a part of the
> packager group in the account system) and having a love for Enterprise
> Linux. Details are in the [[EPEL/FAQ#Contributing_to_EPEL| FAQ entry on
> contributing]].
>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule -- MASSIVE CLEANUP
>
> Somebody from the steering commitee should certainly rewrite it.

Ahem.. yes :).

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc -- dead tree
>
> Looks like a personnal list, can be kept but should not be linked from
> anywhere. Currently it is linked from EPEL/Schedule, but this page has
> to be rewritten anyway.
>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/WishList ??? is this still useful.
>> Basically what isn't wanted in EL-4/5?
>
> Maybe there could be instead a query to packagedb that shows packages
> that don't have an EPEL branch. But I am not sure that it is very
> interesting, in my personal case all the packages that are not in EPEL
> are not there on purpose.
>
> Most is deprecated, and otherwise it is a duplicate of the list of
> packagers not interested in EPEL.
>

>
> As always I can do the changes I advocate if agreed.
>

I agree with several of the changes.. but would like to make sure we
get at least 2 other eyes.

And thankyou.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"