On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:37:08PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:44:20 +0100
Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
> Without having Reports or links to Meeting summaries from Meetbot, it
> is very hard to know what has changed.
I personally don't have time to generate any reports, and the old
scripts that Thorsten used are likely not going to work against
Would you be interested in generating a new weekly report?
I am not really interested in the package statistics, so no.
The meeting summaries are posted to this list, as well as being on
But I am interested in an easy access to the Meetbot logs. Is this the
meetbot site you are talking about: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/
AFAICS there is no easy way to get all EPEL meetbot summaries from
there. Or in other words, the only way seems to be to go through all
summaries from all groups.
> I noticed that there seems to
> be no information about what happened to python-setuptools in EPEL or
> what would happen the next time a package is imported in RHEL, that
> existed in EPEL. Or for which other packages this already happened.
My understanding is that RHEL would import the most recent package from
EPEL and we would block it. Sadly this has not happened correctly in
Ok, this would not cause any issues afaics.
> Btw. this FAQ entry also contains some broken wiki syntax:
It's a wiki. Can you not fix such things when you see them? ;)
I just removed that broken include and pointed to the real doc.
I would have fixed it, if was something I do already know how to fix it.
I did not assume that it should be just removed.
> Then as you already mentioned, the Schedule probably only
> outdated content:
I just looked at it and found two issues:
I guess this is not used anymore? Or is it somehow managed using
| feel free to add your nick to the list of nicks in the "meeting ping"
Also the topic changes are done using "/topic" instead of "#topic". I
never used meetbot, so maybe it matters, maybe it does not:
| /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | Status Reports | Revive them?
There is also a link to this page:
I guess it can be moved to the archive namespace and requested for
deletion? Or even all pages in
this is documented somewhere else.
> I don't know, I only experienced that both conflicted.
Added some more wording.
Any help cleaning up wiki pages is very welcome.
If I know that something is wrong and I know what is right instead, I
happily fix this in the wiki. But if I do not know the details, I
typically do not edit it to avoid making it worse. IMHO it would be nice
to have some easy way to create patches for the wiki, send them to
somebody that has the knowledge, so that he can just verify the changes
and apply them. Then the work can still be shared, but this is more
dreaming then reality.