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

Re: QA-process for new packages



On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:33:13PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:32:32 +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:
> 
> > Thanks! This explanation (toghether with you remarks below) helped me to
> > understand better the philosophy of the Fedora project. Perhaps I
> > should add that I am coming from the debian world. Thus it is quite
> > confusing from time to time to understand what similar and what is
> > different in the Fedora way to set up the project.
> 
> Well, I'm not a spokesman of the Fedora Project. Actually, fedora.us
> is still a separate project inspite of the announced merger with the
> Fedora Project and the ongoing preparations to import it into Fedora
> Extras CVS. Except for semi-public draft documents or proposals I've
> not seen anything concrete on what the final "Fedora way" will look
> like.

This makes it of course more difficult to understand how the project
works. But it seems to me the the "Fedora way" is just evolving and
such strongly dependent on the actions of all volunteers. Thanks for
all your explanations. I have now a very much better feeling of how
it works.

> 
> I wouldn't mind seeing some people who go through the queue and
> re-prioritise packages based on popularity, importance (e.g.
> dependencies and project objectives), or other factors.
> 
> I've also mentioned before that I'd like package developers and users
> to build small QA teams or reduce QA efforts to a minimum (= security
> relevant checks and some items from the QA checklist) and start
> publishing in "unstable" or "testing" repository rather than "stable".
> 
> > So please excuse
> > my sometimes ignorant questions. (And I prefer to ask stupid
> > questions instead of doing something in the "wrong" way.)
> 
> No problem. At least you do ask. That's far better than not asking at
> all and complaining based on misunderstandings.
> 
> > OK. I could of course go and review some packages that I already use
> > or might use if they are in Fedora. But right now I feel that I
> > would like to have one of my package fully reviewed before I look at
> > other pacakges. Thus I could  see what are the issues that I should
> > look at and I can become more comfortable with the Fedora way of
> > thinking (which also has impact on how to build a package).
> 
> True. But by taking look at other packager's packages, you learn
> how they do it. Could be helpful.

That's a good point. I hope I will have some time to engage in the
near future. (Right now my company is preparing a booth at a fair so
I am quite stressed. Hope this will be better end of next month
:-))

	Silke

-- 
Silke Reimer

Intevation GmbH                      http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS                                http://freegis.org/

Attachment: pgp00007.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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