On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:52 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
The formatting of the page leaves a bit to be desired too, esp. the
"Detailed Description" section is mangled.
I've cleaned up the formatting there a bit.
> == Contingency Plan ==
> * Contingency mechanism: (What to do? Who will do it?) N/A (not a
> System Wide Change)
> Enough buffer time has been allocated to complete this during the GSoC period.
I think we need some contingency plan: if issues are filed for F32 in
taiga, and we decide do abort the switch, somebody will need to transfer
them back to wiki. This should be spelled out.
I added a note that I will convert existing changes to wiki pages if
necessary (and churchyard brought up in IRC that he already has an F32
proposal accepted. I will move that to Taiga for him, as well as any
other F32 proposals that come up as this is being implemented).
What is the long-term prospect? Our Change pages serve as
even years after the fact (e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
is being referenced in Debian as they do the same conversion…). Will taiga
be as long-lived? Are URLs in taiga stable? If we decide to switch away from
taiga, can we turn the Changes into static html or preserve them in some other
I can't say if Taiga will out live the wiki. I can say that it is an
area of importance for the Council and the Community Platform
Taiga's URLs are stable, in my experience.
We can preserve the content if we decide to switch away at some point.
There's a part of me that thinks change descriptions should be
committed to a docs repo after implementation (as an appendix to the
release notes, perhaps), but that's outside the scope of this
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager