Packaging quality, assistance.

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 5/9/07, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote:
> A tracker bug sounds like a good idea actually, other then that not too much
> rules please. (/me starts yelling: "to much bureaucracy"). Seriously, the Games
> SIG works well, really well if you ask me, but I wouldn't want to make what we
> do compulsory for other SIGs. Like wise I know the KDE SIG has weekly IRC
> meetings, if that works for them fine, but it doesn't sound like something
> which I envision the Games SIG doing soon.

What we really need is some guidance for the package submission
process, which encourages new packages (and even old packagers) to
review the list of SIGs and make a determination as to whether the new
package submission should come to the SIGs attention at package
submission time.

For example I may at some point actually package a game...maybe....but
I'm most likely forget that a Games SIG exists by that point. But if
there's a broken out bullet item for the Contributor AND the reviewer
in the submission/review process guidance to review the SIG list (and
set the appropriate tracker bug if desired)  that would be a really
good reminder to keep SIGs in mind.

Which reminds me, now that I'm in my new job I really need to touch
base with the scientific SIG.

-jef"hopefully someone else will beat me to it and package up
londonlaw, so I do not have to sully myself with packaging a
game"spaleta