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

Re: Official list of major problems

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 20:31, Richard Li wrote:

> Wouldn't listing the common problems be a denormalization of what's 
> already in Bugzilla?
> Not to mention that you have the problem of defining what "common" and 
> "problem" are. As already noted in this thread, what one person 
> perceives as a problem might not be perceived by another as a problem. 
> And what's "common"? Define it too narrowly, and your list isn't useful 
> to most people. Define it too broadly, then people have to search, and 
> they might as well start going to Bugzilla then.
> I don't think it's a bad idea, but I think it would take time for 
> someone to do...
> So, do you have any suggestions as to guidelines on what would go in 
> such a document, and who/how it would get maintained? What's the 
> relationship between this document and the release notes?
> Richard
I understand what you mean. It is not easy to define what should be in
and what should be out. However there are issues that many people will
encounter rather sooner that later, e.g., the two that I mentioned. A
bug in an obscure hardware driver wouldn't qualify for example.

I don't know what you mean by "denormalization", but an issue report
would be like a summary for one or several bugs/problems present in

What I call for is better "information politics". For example I couldn't
find any links for the mentioned faq locations on fedora.redhat.com. And
why should there be fedora.redhat.com, fedoranews.org, fedorafaq.org,
fedoraforum.org instead of one. It is of course desirable to have many
supporting websites, but as a point of depart fedora.redhat.com is most
Gérard Milmeister
Langackerstrasse 49
8057 Zürich
gemi bluewin ch

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