#938 Add Package Review Process page
Closed by james. Opened by adminix.
adminix/packaging-committee package-review-process  into  master

Download 938.patch

Port over page content from the Fedora Wiki with changes for readability.

  • Make content more concise
  • Note Bugzilla in section titles for sections related to Bugzilla
  • Move Tracking of Package Requests section to be closer to related instructions
  • Add page to nav configuration file

Metadata Update from @pbokoc:
- Request assigned

Since that link is missing from the PR description, I guess you mean this wiki page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

While it was not part of the original set of "Packaging Guidelines" wiki pages (IIRC), it might make sense to include it here. We'll probably discuss that at the next meeting (in January).

Metadata Update from @decathorpe:
- Pull-request tagged with: meeting

Yeah, that's the one. Ugh. Sorry for not including the link.

@decathorpe Hi, have you had a chance to discuss this yet?

@pbokoc Sorry, no. There hasn't been a meeting in three weeks or so, due to lack of quorum.

rebased onto 67b02ec83ae7500c299cf1983086afd8cf98089b

We talked about this in this weeks meeting (https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-07-23/fpc.2020-07-23-16.01.txt):

  • #pr-938 Add Package Review Process page. (geppetto, 16:41:23)
  • LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/938
    (geppetto, 16:41:23)
  • No need for FPC to own this document, can leave it being commnuity
    maintained. Feel free to do any changes directly (geppetto,
    16:56:22)

Pull-Request has been closed by james

My two cents:

I don't think this page should be buried below the packaging committee bureaucracy. It has always been a community-maintained page. It is more about bugzilla states and how to run fedpkg to import a package.

I gather there is some resistance to having things in a wiki, or in having community-maintained pages at all. If so I guess I'm behind the times, and don't want to stand in the way of progress. But this really isn't about packaging guidelines so it seems odd to lump it in with them. Plus, as seen by this ticket, FPC isn't always particularly responsive when it comes to implementing changes, making it less desirable to make it the gatekeeper for things that aren't under its umbrella.

Metadata