Did some bugzilla cleanups
mschwendt at gmail.com
Wed Oct 8 10:05:00 CEST 2008
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:52:22 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Products are:
> > Fedora (versions: 8, 9, development)
> > Fedora EPEL (versions: 5)
> We really need to discuss quickly if we want to stick to that scheme. E.g.
> 1) do we want to seperate free and nonfree in bugzilla?
Would make it possible to assign different owners. Else there's no
> 2) is Fedora EPEL really a good name?
Products in bugzilla can be renamed.
> My answers:
> 1) unsure; most people likely don't care from which of the repos the
> package comes from; other people OTOH will (and those might even yell at
> us if we don't seperate)
Do they even know? With too many products in bz to choose from they may
get lost in the lists of "components" and give up trying to find a
* There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
EPEL: faad2, lame, libdca, twolame, x264, xv, xvidcore
* There are entries which differ between "free" and "nonfree".
* There is an entry with an "initialqacontact" which is a field
disabled in this bz. Use "initialcc" instead.
* Avoid the '&' character in package summaries in owners.list because
bz doesn't replace it with a html entity. This breaks parsing of bz
More information about the rpmfusion-developers