From Fedora Project Wiki

Line 3: Line 3:
 
* "especially if some work has to be done from the infrastructure team" -- releng should be included in this as well.  Until a signing server is created, signing the packages will likely need either releng to help or infrastructure to create a separate sandbox for signing these packages.
 
* "especially if some work has to be done from the infrastructure team" -- releng should be included in this as well.  Until a signing server is created, signing the packages will likely need either releng to help or infrastructure to create a separate sandbox for signing these packages.
 
--[[User:Toshio|abadger1999]] 01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Toshio|abadger1999]] 01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
* I still feel this is a bad idea - no guarantee (or even promise, or pledge) that anything will be fixed; the set of what may be fixed can change at any time (leading to different things being fixed at different rates, etc.)
 +
* In any case, this speaks to 1) infrastructure 2) use of the Fedora 'brand' (including possibly the trademarks) 3) the goals of the project itself. It's a board-level issue, not a FESCo issue.
 +
--[[User:Bill Nottingham|notting]] 15 October 2008
  
 
== Bugzilla ==
 
== Bugzilla ==

Revision as of 17:26, 15 October 2008

  • "when a release goes EOL open all acls to uberpackagers" -- At least initially I'd rather see this applied to a single release. (ie: target F8 to be a long term release or target F9 as a long term release rather than all releases)
  • "Also it is not possible currently to report bug against these packages." -- I'm not certain but I don't think we have the ability to lock down bugzilla like this.
  • "especially if some work has to be done from the infrastructure team" -- releng should be included in this as well. Until a signing server is created, signing the packages will likely need either releng to help or infrastructure to create a separate sandbox for signing these packages.

--abadger1999 01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I still feel this is a bad idea - no guarantee (or even promise, or pledge) that anything will be fixed; the set of what may be fixed can change at any time (leading to different things being fixed at different rates, etc.)
  • In any case, this speaks to 1) infrastructure 2) use of the Fedora 'brand' (including possibly the trademarks) 3) the goals of the project itself. It's a board-level issue, not a FESCo issue.

--notting 15 October 2008

Bugzilla

  • Will we continue to accept bug reports?
  • How can we maintain three versions when we can't maintain two?