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

Re: Proposed PackageRenaming guideline



On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:59:52 +0100
Jochen Schmitt <Jochen herr-schmitt de> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Kevin Fenzi schrieb:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RenamingPackages
> >
> After a first look on this proposel I have some question and comments:
> 
> 1.) Is the approving process the same as if I submit a new package
> request.

No. This is only for renaming existing packages already reviewed and in
the collection. 
> 
> 2.) Because the CVSAdmin request need a bugzilla ticket, why we don't
> doing the relating
> approving process in the same ticket.

We could. That would be more overhead however. 

> 3.) If we not need a full review process, I think anyone should
> approve that the right
> Provides/Requires statement existing in the new package. A lightwight
> approvement
> process may has the advance that the maintaining process of an
> existing package will not
> delayed for a long time by the renaming process.

Agreed. 

> 4.) Each people which has the right to done a normal package review
> should be abled
> to approve a renamed package.

Also agreed. 

> Best Regards:
> 
> Jochen Schmitt

kevin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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