Hello,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping should certainly be in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy currently it is very hard to find. Maybe it should be rerwrited to be presented as a policy, but currently putting it in Policy should be better than the current situation.
And also I didn't found anything on this page telling that EOL version bugs are automatically closed although I think that it is the case.
-- Pat
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr wrote:
And also I didn't found anything on this page telling that EOL version bugs are automatically closed although I think that it is the case.
That's mentioned on this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/MonthAfterRelease
And I'm not sure about linking it from the policy page, since it's not a policy that FPC mandated. But I'll leave that to the FPC members (who I think control that page).
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com wrote:
And I'm not sure about linking it from the policy page, since it's not a policy that FPC mandated. But I'll leave that to the FPC members (who I think control that page).
Sorry, it's already linked from there:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/EOL
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 07:24:30PM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com wrote:
And I'm not sure about linking it from the policy page, since it's not a policy that FPC mandated. But I'll leave that to the FPC members (who I think control that page).
Sorry, it's already linked from there:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/EOL
I've just linked it, indeed. But it is a policy as such, in my opinion.
-- Pat
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 07:21:39PM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr wrote:
And also I didn't found anything on this page telling that EOL version bugs are automatically closed although I think that it is the case.
That's mentioned on this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/MonthAfterRelease
Not really what I was searching after... This seems more like an internal procedure, not reallly something that informs packagers.
And I'm not sure about linking it from the policy page, since it's not a policy that FPC mandated. But I'll leave that to the FPC members (who I think control that page).
Nope, these pages are more under the FESCo responsibility, though they are opened to anybody for modification.
What I asked for was to setup a page in the Policy group that would explain the bugzilla policy.
-- Pat
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:19:39 +0100 pertusus@free.fr (Patrice Dumas) wrote:
What I asked for was to setup a page in the Policy group that would explain the bugzilla policy.
Yes, if someone from Bugzappers could add a section on it to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy I think that would be great. Possibly near/on the EOL policy area?
Pat
kevin
2008/11/23 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:19:39 +0100 pertusus@free.fr (Patrice Dumas) wrote:
What I asked for was to setup a page in the Policy group that would explain the bugzilla policy.
Yes, if someone from Bugzappers could add a section on it to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy I think that would be great. Possibly near/on the EOL policy area?
The only part of our housekeeping page that seems to be policy is the EOL, was there another area that you were wanting in there as well?
--Brennan Ashton
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:19:00PM -0800, Brennan Ashton wrote:
The only part of our housekeeping page that seems to be policy is the EOL, was there another area that you were wanting in there as well?
I think that the use of FutureFeature should be in the policy. And also the part about 'Tracker (Blocker) Bugs'.
Maybe something along:
When a fedora version is released, all the bugs entered against rawhide are rebased against that version, except for those having the 'FutureFeature' keyword.
And for the tracker bugs, simply a redirection to the corresponding Tracker (Blocker) Bugs section of HouseKeeping.
-- Pat
Le Mer 26 novembre 2008 15:44, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
Maybe something along:
When a fedora version is released, all the bugs entered against rawhide are rebased against that version, except for those having the 'FutureFeature' keyword.
And bugs that already block a future target.
I've seen rawhide bugs blocking F11Target requalified as F10 bugs recently. Madness.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
I've seen rawhide bugs blocking F11Target requalified as F10 bugs recently. Madness.
Ouch, that's not supposed to be that way, entirely my fault (I provided the queries to be used, and it seems I forgot those, though the intention was to exclude them). :(
I can go manually fix all of those. Sorry for the noise.
Twenty lashings for me :)
Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:19:00PM -0800, Brennan Ashton wrote:
The only part of our housekeeping page that seems to be policy is the EOL, was there another area that you were wanting in there as well?
I think that the use of FutureFeature should be in the policy. And also the part about 'Tracker (Blocker) Bugs'.
Maybe something along:
When a fedora version is released, all the bugs entered against rawhide are rebased against that version, except for those having the 'FutureFeature' keyword.
And for the tracker bugs, simply a redirection to the corresponding Tracker (Blocker) Bugs section of HouseKeeping. --
I added a bullet about Trackers. FutureFeature was already there. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping#Rawhide_Bugs_Excluded...
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:38:18PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
I added a bullet about Trackers. FutureFeature was already there. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping#Rawhide_Bugs_Excluded...
That was not my point. My point is that these are Policy,, and should be linked from th ePolicy section. Otherwise packagers who are not invloved in bug triaging will never know about it (well they'll know because it hits them, but they won't knwo that it is a policy).
-- Pat
-
Brennan Ashton -
John Poelstra -
Jon Stanley -
Kevin Fenzi -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Patrice Dumas