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

Re: up2date development

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:54:12PM +1000, Alan Milligan wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Sorry, I should have started this in a separate thread to begin with, so
> please bear with me for continuing here.
> As stated earlier, we have a firm agenda to ensure up2date remains both
> that current with Python and a generalised rpm gui tool.
> As with the earlier post, I'm not too concerned about missing FC3
> cutoff, we're all committed to the long-term of Fedora.
> As outlined, removing the OpenSSL package, rpclib, and other sins, is by
> no means trivial (although not that complicated either).  But it is
> certainly too complex to expect bugzilla to usefully manage the process.
	I'm missing some background here I belive. I currently have no 
intention of removing rpclib (rhnlib you mean?), etc. I'm curious
why you want to?

	Any RFE's/bugs etc for up2date need to land in bugzilla. 
> At the least, it requires coordination and discussion to agree that all
> parties interests are met - I am not interested in doing work that's not
> going to be accepted, nor in working upon out of date, irrelevant
> images, or difficult back-ports.
> Can I please be put in touch with the affected RH people (on or off the
> list), so we can decide upon a manner to proceed, somewhat in the vane
> of other open projects we all know and love?

	I'm the primary developer of up2date. Project decisions as
to what I add/fix/spend time on/etc is based on mangement feedback based on
Bugzilla entries.

	Discussing it in email is fine, but before anything gets done,
it's going to need to land in Bugzilla so I can get it properly


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