[Fwd: Re: making Fedora Documentation Project a stand-alone Fedora Product]

[Paul W. Frields]

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 10:30 +0100, Stuart Ellis wrote:
> > > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > > > > From: Dave Lawrence <dkl at redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > > the product name, a list of components, description
> > > > > for each and initial devel owner for bugs for each product. Optionally
> > > > > you can also provide a initial qa contact and cc list members. Please
> > > > > give me the components in the form of:
> > > > > 
> > > > > component:description:initialdevelowner:initialqacontact:initialcclist
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also please provide a brief 3 or 4 sentence description of the product
> > > > > as well.
> > > 
> > > Most of the current CVS modules have tracking bugs.  Would the bug
> > > settings and/or comments be transferable to over the new components?
> > 
> > Yes.  Within each bug, we first change the Product to Fedora
> > Documentation Project, then the Component to the new component.
> 
> OK.  If we go for one-for-one matching then we could just copy the
> information required from those bugs for the CC list etc. as a start
> point.
> 
> > For RHEL guides, the components are part of the RHEL product and the
> > bugzilla components follow a pattern, e.g., rhel-selg.  This helps them
> > stand out.  I suppose we don't need such a thing.
> 
> We do have currently have a document which has the same name as a RHEL
> document - "Installation Guide", and it's labelled
> "fedora-install-guide" in most places.  Theoretically I suppose that we
> could
> end up with other identically named documents too.
> 
> Since we may be maintaining docs for packages for Core and Extras (some
> documents might reference packages from both), I guess the best
> component prefix would be just "fed-", if we use one. 

Aren't these components all under the "Fedora Documentation" product?
If so, isn't such a component prefix redundant?  After all, the "Fedora
Core" or "Fedora Extras" products don't call their components
"fed-kernel" or "fed-yum-utils."  I can't see the FDP ever doing
anything *other* than Fedora docs, but if my logic is flawed, someone
please beat me with the cluestick.

> > So, should we have components that match 1:1 with the names in CVS?
> > 
> > Seems OK to me. :)
> 
> I like simple :).  We'll probably need something for toolchain
> bugs/requests as well, separate from docs-common, but perhaps that
> should just be a tracker bug (as it is now), rather than a component.

I was going to say that "docs-common" needed a component, thanks for
remembering for me!

> Odd idea: Should tracker bugs live in a separate component, since they
> potentially link to bugs in multiple components ?

It should be easy to simply have an "other" component to capture
toolchain or miscellaneous requests.  Only the highest level tracker
bugs are going to be dissociated from specific components, like "docs in
progress," or trackers of that nature.  There should be few enough of
those that they can live in "other" without a problem, I would think.
Since any bug can conceivably become a tracker by having other bugs
block it, making a separate component for tracker bugs could create
needless confusion, couldn't it?

This reminds me to ask:  How hard is it to add components later?  With
one component per doc, as more docs are added (here's where I start
dreaming again), we will need to continually add more components.  Don't
get me wrong, I like that idea best; I'm just wondering whether this
presents a potential delay.  I'm not very familiar with how the
administration of BZ works from an "inside RH" perspective.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-dsco-list/attachments/20050711/945b75de/attachment.sig>