Description of problem, bug, incorrect information, or enhancement request:
Off the top of my head, also:
A better rundown of this needs done.
Version of release notes this bug refers to:
Fedora Core 4 final release
Short term I will add these packages to the list.
I was not happy with the lists I did during testing, they were treediffs between
FC3-HEAD and FC4, and were entirely without context. Rahul asked me to repeat
that for the release, but I don't know if it is useful or harmful to include. I
punted by taking the list that Rahul knew.
If it seems worthwhile still, I can include the list of packages that were in
FC3 but are not in FC4. That doesn't say where they went to, if they got
renamed, etc. Like I said, of dubious value.
Unfortunately there isn't a good method or process for capturing these changes.
I've had multiple discussions about this recently. So far, the best option
seems to be something like this:
A. We need to help define what is worth release noting about a package change,
such as a rename, move to Extras, move to Core, etc.
B. When a package is changed:
1. Developer could put a brief explanation as to what, why, where, etc. plus a
keyword such as RELNOTES in the commit log.
2. That keyword triggers a message to relnotes@/mailing list/automatic
bugzilla entry (long shot idea). Something so it doesn't get lost.
3. Once a release we rally around the RELNOTES captures and make up a list,
then get it vetted during the testing notes.
4. If a developer has a story to tell that is too long for the commit log, an
email can be sent to relnotes@/mailing list
Right now we just have email@example.com, which is the owner of these
bugs. We -might- want to make that a full mailing list such as
fedora-release-notes-list that can then be a bug owner, receiver of developer
tales, and discussion forum.
Fixed previously, closing old bug.