> 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 :
I agree. But if you're going to open a bug - definitely do it in
> 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
I'd actually encourage things to work as:
fedora-list for problems in fc or fe. fedora-extras-list for devel,
requests for packages and itp messages, as well as discussion.
> 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.
I agree I never liked the 'everything in bugzilla' way of doing requests
for packages either. However, I do think that if you want something
tracked over the long term it needs to be in bugzilla.
my head hurts from nodding in agreement
fedora-extras-list mailing list