The community has lost control... (Was: Re: Don't put new packages through updates-testing)

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Sun Jun 3 14:53:39 UTC 2007


Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sunday 03 June 2007 09:27:50 Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Thats not entirely fair. There is a loots of traffic on the maintainers /
>> developer lists and much of the needed information is hidden deep down in
>> subject wise only semi or irrelevant threads. There have been little clear
>> announcements of changes, and when they were there the info was far from
>> complete.
> 
> Every new procedure that I initiated I tried my best to start a new thread 
> with a clear subject on the matter.  I see the same things from others, such 
> as "Pushing updates for Fedora 7" thread.  This is probably one of the most 
> maddening thing lately, so much complaint about communication with no 
> suggestions on how to make it better.
> 

I think the big problem here is time, the merge has been rushed and good 
documentation has been suffering from this.

Ideally when new tools like koji and bodhi get introduced, first some proper 
documentation and detailed new workflow documents are written (preferably 
before making / introducing the tool, to allow discussion). However due to the 
time constrains there has been a serious lack of such documents. I'm not saying 
that you or anybody's intentions weren't good, and yes mails were send, but 
with very much incomplete / incomprehensible stuff in them.

>> As for the wiki that is currently very much out of sync with how things are
>> done in the merged world / out of sync with reality.
> 
> And you expect us to change it how?  For god sakes if you run into a page that 
> is inaccurate, point it out to somebody, hopefully the person who made it 
> inaccurate by introducing a new policy.  Maybe we need a tracker page 
> of 'inaccurate pages'.  Don't just expect them to be fixed automagically, 
> point it out to somebody, change it yourself, do something.  Don't just grow 
> more and more frustrated finally bitching about it generically on a list in 
> the middle of a long thread.
> 

Well when the powers that be make radical changes to the workflow I would 
_atleast_ expect them to update:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess

Which is the primary document to consult when you want to introduce a new 
package, yet there is nothing about bodhi in this document.

I do not expect anyone to update all niche pages of the wiki, but is it to much 
to ask to update a very important often consulted page like:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess

When there are workflow changes? Sure in about a week, when I hopefully truely 
understand how bodhi works, I could edit it myself. But I would expect the 
people introducing such changes to atleast show some minimal effort to keep the 
most important pages of the wiki under the PackageMaintainers/ hierarchy up to 
date.

Regards,

Hans




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list