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

Re: Plans for tomorrow's (20090529) FESCo meeting

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:01:29PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>On Fri May 29 2009, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I don't see a problem.
>Imho outdated content reduces the quality of the wiki, therefore there should 
>be some garbage collection.
>> If the Feature owner cares enough to keep proposing it, then FESCo will
>> keep reviewing it.  Technical items change over time.  Perhaps the
>> VirtualBox module will make it into the upstream kernel and the Feature
>> will be viable. Or perhaps a future FESCo will revist kmods.
>Did you look at the content of the feature page? Even in the very unlikely 

Yes, I did.

>case that it may be included in Fedora in the future, Fedora will probably be 
>the last distribution to include it, so it is also very unlikely that it even 
>meats the Feature criteria. And if it does, there are only four sentences in 
>the Feature page, that were not in the template.


>> If the Feature owner doesn't care, then they can delete the page.  Either
>> way, I don't see what the problem is with having it sit in the
>> FeaturePageIncomplete category.
>It seems more to me, that the Feature owner does not care, because the package 
>is very incomplete and I got no response from my comment in December 2008 that 
>Virtualbox won't make it into Fedora. Btw. how does the Feature owner delete 

That seems to be a simple case of a page requiring wiki gardening.  Seriously,
if we have to have a FESCo policy to allow the deletion of stale wiki pages
(Feature or not), then we have gone wrong somewhere.

So I suggest we just mark it for deletion and if the Feature owner cares he'll
unmark it.

>the page? It seems to me, that this is not easily possible using the wiki 



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