Ticket #34 (closed task: fixed)

Opened 8 years ago

Last modified 7 years ago

Package Renaming Guidelines

Reported by: jstanley Owned by: jstanley
Priority: major Keywords: writeup
Cc: nim Blocked By:

Description (last modified by jstanley) (diff)

Let's firm these up.

 < nim-nim> it would be great if some of the numerous people whose packages I've reviewed lately approved
18:56 < nim-nim> bug #481472
18:56 < nim-nim> bug #481476
18:56 < nim-nim> bug #481478
18:56 < buggbot> Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=481472 medium, low, ---, notting@redhat.com, NEW, Renaming review: edrip-fonts ⇒ apanov-edrip-fonts
18:56 < buggbot> Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=481476 medium, low, ---, notting@redhat.com, NEW, Renaming review:  charis-fonts ⇒ sil-charis-fonts
18:56 < buggbot> Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=481478 medium, low, ---, notting@redhat.com, NEW, Renaming review:  andika-fonts ⇒ sil-andika-fonts
18:57 < nim-nim> or nirik, even, you're the one who insisted on review ;)
18:57 < nirik> nim-nim: notting is assigned all those?
18:58 < nim-nim> nirik: seems that's what happens when you create a bug against distro
18:58 < nirik> nim-nim: is that the right component? not Package Review?
18:58 < nim-nim> nirik: such as when cloning a renaming bug
18:58  * jds2001 would make it Pakcage Review
18:58 < nim-nim> nirik: I haven't the faintest idea what the right component is
18:59 < nim-nim> nirik: this is all under-specified
18:59 < nim-nim> nirik: you know I'd rather have given infra a rename list and let them deal with it in one go
18:59 < nirik> agreed. I guess we should make sure and overspecify it... can discuss at the next fesco meeting.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by jstanley

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by kevin

I created a draft a while back here:


But there are outstanding questions:

  • Should renaming reviews happen in bugzilla? or mailing list?
  • Should there be some exception or procedure for mass renaming, such as all the fonts that are currently being renamed.
  • Should approval come from provenpackagers or some other group? Or is maintainers enough?

comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by bpepple

  • Keywords meeting removed

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by jstanley

What ever happened with this? I *think* we have guidelines on renames now.

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by kevin

Yes, it was decided that the guideline for renames is:

You must submit the package with it's new name and obsoletes/provides and get it reviewed as normal, once it's imported, the old named package is retired.

Perhaps we should codify this on the wiki.

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by jstanley

ahh, that's why it's still open. I'm supposed to be making that happen/owning/cleaning up the pages on the wiki.

Thanks for reminding me :)

comment:7 follow-up: ↓ 8 Changed 7 years ago by jstanley

  • Keywords writeup added
  • Owner set to jstanley
  • Status changed from new to assigned

comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 Changed 7 years ago by alexlan

Replying to jstanley:

Ping? This has yet to be documented as per ticket #261.

comment:9 Changed 7 years ago by jstanley

Yep, I'm on the hook for it this week. I should get to it tonight.

comment:10 Changed 7 years ago by jstanley

  • Status changed from assigned to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

This writeup is completed. Let me know if something more is required. FESCo profusely apologizes for the delay in getting this decision documented.


Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.