There have been multiple people finding the term "auto-package" in your
article as misleading. The main concern was that packit currently doesn't
generate a SPEC file which we felt like it's a substantial part of
packaging. So I had to pull it out for additional editing.
If I get it right, once you have the spec file, it does all the work for
you, right? So maybe we could change it to "auto-update" in the title? And
clarify that in the article, too?
I understand that auto-packaging is likely the goal of the packit project,
but I personally find it a bit aspirational at this very stage. That being
said, I'd be great to get another article out once we get the SPEC file,
Do you prefer to update the article yourself, or would you rather have one
of the editors to have a look at it? I'm asking because I don't want to put
words into your mouth (like "auto-update") without asking you first. :-)
Please let me know.
On Saturday, May 25, 2019, Adam Samalik <asamalik(a)redhat.com> wrote:
OK thanks for the feedback, I took it out and will deal with it
on Monday. It'll need a new title, a new image, and some additional editing.
On Friday, May 24, 2019, <s40w5s(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Magazines print retractions all of the time. It is an unavoidable
> consequence of writing articles of factual based information, there
> will be errors from time to time. Correction for clarification
> purposes, even as an editorial note, is definitely in the editors
> "wheel house" and in this case is needed in my opinion. Although I
> don't have familiarity with the packaging process enough to dive into
> it, otherwise I'd help more, but I can cheer Adam on!
> On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 20:48 +0000, Fabian Affolter wrote:
> > > I don't think I should pull it out at this point, nor should I
> > > rewrite it.
> > In the current state the article is misleading. It seems that we can
> > agree that packit doesn't "auto-package".
> > > Also, I don't want to add a note such as "Editor's note:
> > > doesn't
> > > actually generate a SPEC file for you." because that wouldn't
> > > good. So
> > > I think I just leave it as it is at this point? Any better ideas?
> > Leaving the article as it is, is definitely the worst options. If
> > editing "wouldn't feel good" then the article should be remove
> > immediately. Otherwise it will stay at least online for two more days
> > till something is done.
> > I'm all for editing because nobody will complain about clarification.
> > Kind regards,
> > Fabian
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > magazine-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> > List Guidelines:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/magazine@lists
> Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to magazine-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.or
Senior Software Engineer
Senior Software Engineer