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

[Stuart Ellis]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:35:53 -0700, "Karsten Wade" <kwade at redhat.com>
said:
> On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 16:21 +0100, Stuart Ellis wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 23:35 -0700, Karsten Wade 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. 

> 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.

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

Stuart Ellis

stuart at elsn.org

Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/

GPG key ID: 7098ABEA
GPG key fingerprint: 68B0 E291 FB19 C845 E60E  9569 292E E365 7098 ABEA