documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

[Till Maas]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:42:04PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
> Matt Domsch wrote:
> > However, check if unifdef is really needed.  The kernel team knew it
> > was going to be orphaned, and said "that's OK, as the kernel tree has
> > its own copy that's maintained there." or somesuch.  If not, letting
> > it stay dead is fine - desireable in fact.
> >   
> What is the criteria for whether a Fedora package is "really needed" and 
> for which staying dead is "desirable"?  I picked it up because I use it 
> myself; I had no idea that it had anything whatsoever to do with the 
> "kernel team", and I don't have any use for a "copy that's maintained 
> there".

If you need/use it and want to maintain it, you are free to do so. If
the kernel team knows a better alternative that you should consider,
then the package should be retired instead of just orphaned and an
explanation about why it was retired should be added to a dead.package
file in the CVS devel branch. Usually the latter is not done, so you can
only ask the previous maintainers. Nevertheless, having a "copy that's
maintained there" sounds like bad packaging practice.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100212/059526f7/attachment.bin