Recapitulate the current state of Fedora Extras and some ideas to make it better

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Josh Boyer schrieb:
> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 18:31 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Michael Schwendt schrieb:
>>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:42:35 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>[...]
>>> Or if somebody
>>> within FESCo learns about such a rebuild, that there will be an official
>>> announcement about what FE packagers should/must do?
>> I'm not sure I understand you correctly. It for sure will be announced
>> when FESCo agrees on a mass-rebuild.
> Maybe we should revisit how Extras rebuilds are done too.  Personally, I
> like the way they're handled in Core.  A single person starts it and
> maintainers email him if they _do not_ want their package rebuilt for
> whatever reason.  IMHO, that provides the advantage that the number of
> cats to herd is fewer.

Well, yes, that might be easier. But the manual rebuild has one (IMHO
important) benefit: All maintainers have to show up. That's the only
time when we force them to do something and we found lot of orphans and
AWOL packagers with this procedure during the mass rebuild for FC5. I
suspect we'll find some again during a manual mass rebuild for FC.

>> Also non-sponsors might be interested in this feature as well.
>>
>>> [...]
>>>>   * fedora-devel-list, fedora-extras-list, fedora-maintainers -- these
>>>> multiple lists get confusing, some things that are discussed on
>>>> fedora-maintainers-list would be better suited for fedora-extras-list
>>>> AFICS;
>>> It's not the confusion that hurts, but the insane amount of cross-posting.
>> Both AFAICS.
>> I'd prefer if fedora-maintainers would be more like an moderated,
>> non-discussion announce-list to inform all the maintainers about
>> important things. Discussion on the other two lists.
> 
> Actually, I disagree.  Having a list for Extras and a list for Core just
> segregates things more.

Just to make sure: fedora-maintainers is for both Core and Extras
maintainers iirc.

>  This is a case where I think we need cohesion.
> We're already talking about doing releases differently to be more like
> Core, and various other Core<->Extras merge type issues, so having a
> single list for all package maintainers to discuss is a step towards
> that goal.

I agree with the goal, but a merge of fedora-devel, fedora-maintainers
and fedora-extras can still wait a bit -- currently it's IMHO better for
the extras specific discussions remain on a separate list.

CU
thl