Re: Self-Introduction: Jonathan Leighton

[Michael Schwendt <fedora wir-sind-cool org>]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:53:04 -0800, Per Bjornsson wrote:

> > Using bugzilla for package submissions and package updates has been
> > considered extra burden for package maintainers. Hence for several
> > months, trusted developers can update/upgrade their packagers without
> > needing to wait for QA in bugzilla. With fedora.us' infrastructure
> > they would open a ticket as a build request for a src.rpm. But since
> > FC3 builds are not done at fedora.us, the Inkscape packager didn't
> > open such a ticket.
> 
> OK. I thought that the process still involved a bugzilla entry even
> though it could be effectively self-approved by 

Yes. As I wrote above [in the last sentence], _if_ fedora.us built for
FC3 or if there were a request to build the package for FC2/FC1, the
packager would have opened a build request ticket.

> who's working on what sounds useful to me - . Actually, it just struck
> me that perhaps something like Debian's ITP system (as far as I can tell
> it pretty much means that when you're planning to package something you
> send an e-mail to a mailing list) might be a good idea for Fedora
> Extras?

Well, fedora-devel-list does exist and is pretty low-traffic. A
separate list specific to Fedora Extras might be helpful if people
became much more active. But since almost no details of Fedora Extras
have been announced, it remains unknown to which level the package
submission procedure might change. I always thought that while Fedora
Extras is being worked on, the community would work on fedora.us,
improve it where deficiences are determined, and use it to practise
maintaining packages.

-- 
The "Fedora Extras" infrastructure: http://img.web.de/c/00/55/4D/B2.420