Test Case for Yum document

[Karsten Wade]

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 08:48 +0300, John Babich wrote:
> On 12/19/06, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > What, exactly, did you experience or observe?  I have the first usage in
> > my /etc/yum.conf and it works.  I just did a "yum clean all" and
> > everything worked as expected with my squid proxy.  (I am tunneling it
> > through SSH, but that shouldn't matter in this case.)
> >
> This is where it gets tricky. I guess the good thing about filing a bug report
> is that, if done correctly, the filer should verify the bug and explain the
> context in as much detail as possible.

Yes, to the meta-point in this discussion, this is the advantage of
filing a bug report.  We could add the yum developer to resolve the
question, for example.  Attach patches of suggested fixes, such as
admonition that covers your situation.  Etc.

But how do we cover this in the case of e.g. one writer and another
needing to discuss and dispute technical content?  Our workflow should
allow for informal channels of discussion, and give some suggestions
about when to break out of informality into something more formal
(difficult to use) but useful (can drag in more people).  Also, informal
discussions should probably happen on-list, so we all benefit/critique.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor    ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20061219/fd8503ed/attachment.bin