[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Extras Lists Transition Plan



On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 07:48 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 12:16 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Monday 27 February 2006 12:21, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >
> > >> * FE and FC should be treated as one entity, therefore the split you are
> > >> proposing renders fedora-extras list superfluous, because the topics to
> > >> be discussed on your future fedora-extras-list are already covered by
> > >> fedora-list.
> > >
> > > I for one  have not been subscribed to fedora-list for at least a couple
> > > of
> > > years.  when the move from redhat to fedora happened  i quickly dropped
> > > off
> > > of fedora-list because of to much noise.  so I personally am not aware of
> > > what happens there.
> > >
> > > I do think the proposed split is good.
> > 
> > +1
> 
> Not address Josh in particular, just picking up his email: 

Fair enough.  But I'll respond anyway :)

> 
> Why? I'd presume you want 
> * to avoid having to read review requests?

No, I just want them in a separate list.  Right now, I would say that
the review requests make up the majority of mail on -extras and I
personally find it harder to read some of the non-review content.  Just
a personal preference, that's all.

> * to avoid to see developers being involved into reviews?

Hm, no definitely not.

> * to shield packager's from user's and developer's opinions?

I don't see how that will happen because of this.

> As I've said many times before, one effect of establishing more and more
> mailing lists is "establishing gangs/closed circles" instead of widening
> the audience - I can't find anything helpful in this.

I don't think so.  The way I would see it working is that review email
goes to the -review list.  Normally, the content of such bugs is the
same.  "Fix this to be like it says in the packaging guidelines", etc.
We have a defined set of packaging and review guidelines that are pretty
easy to follow, IMHO.  So for new packagers, we point them there.

Whenever something comes up that _isn't_ a typical situation, then the
packager/reviewer brings it up on -extras.  That list should be for
discussing changes to Extras as a whole, whether it be packaging policy
or the recent kmod discussions, or even scratch builds.  Even this
particular discussion (see it's working already ;).

The -extras list should also be where end users get to voice their
opinions.  Nothing prevents them from doing so today, so that doesn't
really change.  It also allows FESCO and the maintainers to communicate
with the end users.  Take Thorsten's FESCO summary emails.  Those are
awesome.  Stuff like that is what -extras should be.

I don't think this is a case of closing circles.  All of the lists can
be subscribed to by anyone, so it's all still open.

Just my $0.02.

josh

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]