[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Bugzilla usage (was: Re: kmymoney2)



seth vidal wrote :

> bugzilla.fedora.us is not to be used for fedora extras anymore. If you
> want to add a new package go to bugzilla.redhat.com

Regarding this... I never liked using bugzilla from the very beginning, and
I find it much easier to reach a large "mostly passive" community through a
mailing-list than through a bugzilla. My ideal way of working would be :
1) Make requests for new packages, or post links to packages in order to
submit them on the mailing-list (so maybe later on have a
fedora-extras-devel-list for that and use fedora-extras similarly to
fedora-list).
2) From there, let discussions and initial improvements and fixes take
place, everyone sees them immediately and may participate (see the snort
messages from the past 2 days).
3) Once the package passes initial QA, then have the maintainer import it
into Extras, and have all that is needed created (CVS directory by the
import, bugzilla component...).
4) Start using bugzilla from there on for that package, pretty much like it
has always been done for RH/FC.

This will avoid bloating bugzilla with repeated RFE's regarding packages
that can't be included (think any package that seems ok but needs to link
to a patent encumbered lib to be useful), and most of all from gazillions
of open submissions that will stay open forever (like in fedora.us).
I really hope to see Fedora Extras draw a clear line between "what's in" on
one side, and "what isn't yet / what will never be" on the other.

Thoughts?

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux kernel 2.6.10-1.760_FC3
Load : 0.66 0.45 0.31


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]