On 10/13/2011 09:38 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 09:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
At least I do not want to this list to become a newbie forum nor "yet another source" of review spam.
Well, if you consider tibbs, rex, sochotnicky or toshio (people who have mentionned to be interested in the SIG) to be newbie then I guess we are not welcome.
Except of you and sochotnicky, I know all of them.
If you do not consider them to be newbie then I would invite you to read again what's the idea behind this SIG.
Yes, may-be I should read it for the n-th time. Openly said, I don't see much sense in such a SIG, but I didn't want to take away your favorite toy.
You might not want to hear this, but to me personally, the chatter and the bureaucrazy's (typo intended) noise on package-review@ already is beyond "being bearable".
Again, we do not want to duplicate/replicate/have anything in common with package-review@.
Or you have to tell me how I can try to be more clear.
So ... what do you want to do?
Problems within a review belong into the review, general/fundamental problems belong on this list rsp. in front of the FPC, ... I don't understand hat are you aiming at, except that you are intending to implement the (n+1)th body in fedora.
Ralf