(Response) |
(→Critical Path Comps Groups: propose move to archive space of the redundant page, ask about comps) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
IMHO it is a very annoying idea to use the core group as a critical path group, because it makes selecting all critical path groups more complicated and unintuitive. E.g. on fedora-devel I assumed that all critical path updates can be installed using <code>yum groupinstall critical-path\*</code> and nobody objected. But with using the core group, it has to be <code>yum groupinstall critical-path\* core</code>. Therefore please use a critical-path-core group that contain all the core packages. --[[User:Till|Till]] 08:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC) | IMHO it is a very annoying idea to use the core group as a critical path group, because it makes selecting all critical path groups more complicated and unintuitive. E.g. on fedora-devel I assumed that all critical path updates can be installed using <code>yum groupinstall critical-path\*</code> and nobody objected. But with using the core group, it has to be <code>yum groupinstall critical-path\* core</code>. Therefore please use a critical-path-core group that contain all the core packages. --[[User:Till|Till]] 08:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
Also it does not make sense to have two pages that list the critical path comps groups, this one and [[Critical_Path_Packages_Proposal]]. Redundancy of such information is bad, because it is not properly synced and therefore people may only get the out of date information. -- [[User:Till|Till]] 08:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC) | Also it does not make sense to have two pages that list the critical path comps groups, this one and [[Critical_Path_Packages_Proposal]]. Redundancy of such information is bad, because it is not properly synced and therefore people may only get the out of date information. -- [[User:Till|Till]] 08:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
: [[User:Jlaska|jlaska]] 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC) - There is only one page that details the critical path status and implementation, and that is [[Critical_path_package]]. The [[Critical_Path_Packages_Proposal]] page is not intended for ongoing maintenance and was used to outline the problem space and manage the first-round implementation. If there is information you are missing on [[Critical_path_package]], we can address it (as you have initiated above). | |||
:: How about moving the Proposal page to the Archive namespace or apply some other wiki-procedure to indicate that the page is deprecated? And what about the comps groups? Will this be addressed? --[[User:Till|Till]] 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:59, 8 July 2010
There's a 404 on the critpath.txt for branched. The latest critpath.txt that I could find was created on May 18, 2010. I pointed the 404'd link to that file, but this is most assuredly a hack. Dafrito 17:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Critical Path Comps Groups
IMHO it is a very annoying idea to use the core group as a critical path group, because it makes selecting all critical path groups more complicated and unintuitive. E.g. on fedora-devel I assumed that all critical path updates can be installed using yum groupinstall critical-path\* and nobody objected. But with using the core group, it has to be yum groupinstall critical-path\* core. Therefore please use a critical-path-core group that contain all the core packages. --Till 08:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Also it does not make sense to have two pages that list the critical path comps groups, this one and Critical_Path_Packages_Proposal. Redundancy of such information is bad, because it is not properly synced and therefore people may only get the out of date information. -- Till 08:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- jlaska 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC) - There is only one page that details the critical path status and implementation, and that is Critical_path_package. The Critical_Path_Packages_Proposal page is not intended for ongoing maintenance and was used to outline the problem space and manage the first-round implementation. If there is information you are missing on Critical_path_package, we can address it (as you have initiated above).
- How about moving the Proposal page to the Archive namespace or apply some other wiki-procedure to indicate that the page is deprecated? And what about the comps groups? Will this be addressed? --Till 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)