[fab] Proposed Plan for Split of Fedora-Announce-List

[Max Spevack]

Go for it.

I would add a final step 4) make sure we communicate what we did out to 
everyone.  :-)

--Max

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Warren Togami wrote:

> seth vidal wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 11:53 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
>>> It's not a particularly ballsy decision.  It just needs to get made.  :)
>>> 
>> 
>> I guess I'm missing what the big controversy is.
>> 
>> We'd be best off producing messages in such a way and using such
>> technology that we can easily convert them into N different formats. Or
>> better yet, that someone else can for themselves.
>> 
>
> 1) Split fedora-announce-list
> -----------------------------
> Make fedora-announce-list into a low traffic, high relevance list of
> only announcements.
>
> 2) Redirect package update announcements onto its own list
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> fedora-package-announce exists for people who want to receive update
> announcements of any Fedora package.  People can login to change their
> subscription to include or exclude different channels within
> fedora-package-announce.  So you could ask for only Fedora 5 (including
> FC5, FE5 and FL5).
>
> This package announce list only temporarily will be the only solution.
> When the next objective is achieved, then people will have other options
> to view the same information.
>
> 3) Make package announcements backed by a database
> --------------------------------------------------
> We should have all of this information stored in a database.  Generated
> from this database are a number of both push & pull representations like:
> - Package update and security advisory list announcements
> - RSS feeds
> - Canonical package update website (links from RSS feed point here)
> - Metadata for pirut and pup
>
> http://people.redhat.com/wtogami/temp/fedora-updates.png
> Luke Macken's previous work on the Fedora Update tracking system that we
> currently use only internally give us a head start in these goals.  It
> would be fairly easy to build upon this existing foundation, but only
> after we achieve a few other objectives.  (Putting the Fedora Updates
> system in the public requires some design considerations for proper
> handling of Embargo and possibly other aspects related to the Fedora
> distribution merge.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Warren Togami
> wtogami at redhat.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
>

-- 
Max Spevack
+ gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/~mspevack/mspevack.asc
+ fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21