Cédric Boutillier escreveu isso aí: > Hi! > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:05:40PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote: > > Hey all, > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:50:21AM +0200, Cédric Boutillier wrote: > > > I wrote a first draft available on gobby.debian.org, under > > > Teams/RubyExtras/transition_to_new_policy.txt. Before more polishing, > > > could you please read/review/criticise/edit/improve (constructively :D)? > > > I have made some changes: > > - Made text flow consistent (fixed vs flowed, couldn't help myself). > > - Add a note in the naming conventions section that applications are > > supposed to be called just "foo". > > - Add a link to our packaging guidelines; made the link to the gem2deb > > transition instructions more specific as the wiki page is rather large. > > Thank you Paul, as well as Antonio, for your review. > > > Another note (for which I made no changes yet): > > You mention that we want to have maintainers outside the PRE team to > > also transition their package to improve statistics. This suggests that > > this is our main aim. I think the most important thing is to have a > > higher quality of Ruby packages and also a more consistent experience of > > installing and using them. That is why this transiions _needs_ to be > > finished before Wheezy freezes. We will present a mess to the user and > > a hassle to maintain to ourselves if we don't. > > So, I suggest a stronger formulation and leave the part about the > > statistics out... they are just there to show us the progress. > > I've imported the text to the wiki, as it might be easier to work with: > > http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Drafts/StateOfTransitionNewPolicy > > I tried to address the issue you raised by rewriting the paragraph > between link 0: and 1:. (I left a mention the first bit about the > statistics because it illustrates the discussion somehow). I also added > a few words about gem2deb at the end of the introduction, just to say it > exists, and it is a nice tool, not to discourage people before the end. > > I suggest that if there is no other comment or modification proposed, we > (I?) send it to debian-devel in a week (Friday April, 20th, 22:00 UTC), > because time runs fast, and there is a lot of work to do. What to you > think? I think that maybe we should send it to debian-devel-announce, since not everyone reads debian-devel. And we should probably ask the release team what they think before reaching to a wider audience. For example, they might suggest ways in which we can act in the case the transition is not 100% finished at freeze time. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature