On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 07:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 06.06.2006, 23:43 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: > > On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 17:42 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > I've seen very little evidence of > > > anyone else reading it anyway. > > Yes, the FESCo Gods in their incomprehensible wisdom had decided they > > wanted a separate list, now they've got what wanted: Basically a list > > archive, nobody reads. > > <nitpicking>The List archive of fedora-extras-commits-list goes back up > to "2004-November". FESCo was founded on the first FudCon iirc on "18 > February 2005" and the first Meeting-Summary is from "24 February 2005" > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings > </nitpicking> > > SCNR ;-) The list archive, yes, but the decision to split out commit-mails from fedora-extras list had been taken and proposed by you (IIRC, it was you THL or Warren). This decisions of yours has caused fedora-commit list to degrade to a list-archive feed, apparently not being read. To me, this means you basically have switched off a means of QA. You wanted it, you did it, you are responsible - Therefore this now is your problem. > > I told them before, but they refused to listen ;) > > Ranting appreciated, but helping working out something that works better > much preferred; FESCo has a long todo-list already and really needs a > bit more help. As I said then: maintainers should obliged to subscribe to fedora-commit-list. An easy way to achieve this, would have been not to split out commit-messages from fedora-extras-list. An alternative way would be to merge it with an fedora-extras-maintainers-list. Or putting it differently: If you want to improve QA, I don't see an alternative to making reading all commits mandatory. Yes people will find this annoying, but that's a price they have to pay. If they are not interested in reading others commits, then they should better stay away from packaging packages for FE. > I also know that fedora-extras-commits-list doesn't work very well. I > hope that we can have a QA group in the future that makes sure that each > commit is checked at least roughly by one experienced packager. Well, yes, a "review-list" would be an approach, but ... > But > we're already short of reviewers and sponsors for extras and have a long > list of packages still under review so this probably will fail due do a > lack of time/interest/manpower. ... agreed, I doubt this will work out. Instead, I'd suggest to implement maintainer teams/task forces and groups of maintainers. Ralf
