Fwd: Regarding the section "Mass Package Rebuilds - Papering Over Cracks or Shaking the Tree?" on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue84

[Karsten Wade]

How should we handle errata?

Since this is email, I think a resend to f-announce-l with a subject:

"[errata] Fedora Weekly News Issue 84"

... then trim the email to just the errata'd section, showing the
original, then put in the correction.

I think disagreements about our opinions are not worthy of an errata.  A
different interpretation of the facts is not worthy of an errata.  A
factual error is worthy of an errata.

FWIW, the "to rebuild or not rebuild" situation I found very confusing
the entire time; I could not get a handle on the technical details
enough to decide.

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 10:12 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote:
> FYI...
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>
> Date: Apr 23, 2007 1:24 AM
> Subject: Regarding the section "Mass Package Rebuilds - Papering Over
> Cracks or Shaking the Tree?" on
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue84
> To: Thomas Chung <tchung at fedoraproject.org>, rahulsundaram at gmail.com,
> Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com>
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I found my name near a section where I think the text is misleading
> (read: totally wrong):
> 
> "ThorstenLeemhuis was against one of the decisions made in the meeting:
> the rebuilding en masse of all packages at Test2 release time."
> 
> The second part of that is not wrong; from the log of the meeting
> referred to:
> 
> "In the future we should consider a mass rebuild of all packages around,
> but no later than test2"
> 
> "Consider a mass rebuild" and "rebuilding en masse of all packages at
> Test2 release time" are two totally different things.
> 
> Further: I'm all for "considering a mass rebuild of all packages around,
> but no later than test2".
> 
> Please fix (in a ideal world: in a way that readers that have read it
> see that something was corrected after the stuff was published) and
> please be a bit more careful in the future. Thanks!
> 
> CU
> thl
> 
> 
-- 
   Karsten Wade, 108 Editor       ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------- 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-news-list/attachments/20070423/d385a2de/attachment.sig>