separate emails to fedora-legacy-announce for each OS

[Marc Deslauriers]

On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 09:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:37:37AM -0400, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> > It's pretty much 4 times more work...
> 
> I respect your opinion on this a lot since you've been doing much of the
> work, but, c'mon, that's an exaggeration. Most of the per-release work is
> already being done -- building the package for each release, QAing it, etc.
> And I don't really think it's even 4x the paperwork.
> 

I only meant more work preparing the advisories, not doing QA and
everything. If people prefer having it that way, I'll gladly do it.

> > We'll need to decide what we will do with the advisories we post to
> > Bugtraq and Full Disclosure lists. Do we post 4 advisories to them for
> > each bug? Do we wait until packages for every platform come out before
> > posting a consolidated advisory to them? Do we just drop posting to
> > Bugtraq and Full Disclosure alltogether?
> 
> Fedora Core does 'em separately.

Yes, but they're not sent to Bugtraq or Full Disclosure. If it's okay to
send 16 different advisories out to those lists when we have 4 fixed
packages, then I don't mind doing it.

> That's only one of the things it helps solve. It also makes it much easier
> for actual end users (the point of the project, after all!) to track
> updates. And, making it more like the regular Fedora Core and Fedora Extras
> bug tracking makes it much easier to migrate bugs from there, and just to
> *work* in both worlds.
> 

OK, you've convinced me. I agree that the bugs would be easier to track
if we had a separate bug per release.


> > With the QA whiteboard tags, it's really easy to figure out.
> > Take a look at Dom's links page:
> > http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~dom/legacy/issues.txt
> 
> This seems like kludging a less-intuitive workflow on top of bugzilla,
> rather than really using bugzilla's primary tracking functionality. Are the
> status whiteboard tags documented somewhere?

Dom sent a mail to this list on Apr 12 to document the tags.

You are absolutely right that it's a bad kludge. The problem is we're
using Red Hat's bugzilla, so it's built-in tracking functionality
doesn't work for Fedora Legacy. Instead of Red Hat's "Assigned" and
"Need Info" statuses, we would need something like "Needs Work", "Needs
PUBLISH", "Needs BUILD", "Needs VERIFY", "Needs Release".

I am not a bugzilla expert, does someone know if different statuses can
be created per product?

Marc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20050427/cf6d037e/attachment.sig>