I've proposed discussing this at the next FESCo meeting:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269
If you have opinions on the matter, please consider attending.
Thanks,
Cole
On 03/24/2014 04:41 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In case readers don't know, this page describes what a merg
On 03/26/2014 08:46 AM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 08:13:24AM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
If those packages are still not following current packaging guidelines
then they should not be closed otherwise what is th
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 08:13:24AM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
>> If those packages are still not following current packaging guidelines
>> then they should not be closed otherwise what is the use of FPC and
>> their work, meetings,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 08:13:24AM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
> If those packages are still not following current packaging guidelines
> then they should not be closed otherwise what is the use of FPC and
> their work, meetings, updating wiki pages all these efforts will be of
> no use then for ex
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
> >> have an open merge review. Take those packages out of t
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 08:42 AM, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On 03/24/2014 08:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
An alternative would be to reassign every open me
On 03/25/2014 08:42 AM, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 03/24/2014 08:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
Thou
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do,
> > although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic.
> This always winds up being the suggestion. Nobody actually does
> anything about i
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do,
>> > although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic.
>> This always winds up b
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do,
>> > although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic.
>> This always winds up b
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
> >> have an open merge review
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
>> have an open merge review. Take those packages out of the repository.
>> Then revisit the list
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
> have an open merge review. Take those packages out of the repository.
> Then revisit the list and formulate a plan on what to do with thoes (even if
> the
On 03/24/2014 08:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>
>> An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
>> in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> Alternative idea -- may
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >> An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the
> >> component
> >> in question, and let maintainers handle it as t
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>
>> An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
>> in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> Alternative i
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>
> An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
> in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
ha
Hi all,
In case readers don't know, this page describes what a merge review is:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews
In short: when fedora core and extras merged, a Package Review was opened for
every package in core. The idea was that every core package would be reviewed
to ensure it me
18 matches
Mail list logo
