#1 Fedora 20 Change Accepted
Closed: Pushed None Opened 7 years ago by ralph.

name: Fedora 20 Change Accepted
description: You got a "Change" accepted into the Fedora 20 Change list
criteria: Link to change list


Shouldn't we make this more generic, so not version 20-specific?

Especially as an f20 one is a bit unfair, as we no longer accept new features...

Shouldn't we make this more generic, so not version 20-specific?

Especially as an f20 one is a bit unfair, as we no longer accept new features...

nit pick, features were renamed to Changes in f20

nit pick, features were renamed to Changes in f20

Artwork concept: just a simple "thumbs up!" might work, or could be too generic - we could have some kind of standard artwork element that indicates a Change, with the thumbs up.

Artwork concept: just a simple "thumbs up!" might work, or could be too generic - we could have some kind of standard artwork element that indicates a Change, with the thumbs up.

While i'm triaging, Features are Changes now.

While i'm triaging, Features are Changes now.

Set triaged to 'yes' for all tickets, as I've hit them all already.

Set triaged to 'yes' for all tickets, as I've hit them all already.

just put types back in, we'll try and handle bugs here too, no new trac.

just put types back in, we'll try and handle bugs here too, no new trac.

So, we have added a new series badge for release-specific wall paper submissions: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-badges/ticket/126

We can follow the model with this one. It doesn't need YAML since we won't scrape it, but we'll have to ask FESCo to give us a list of fas usernames of people with accepted Changes for each release.

So, we have added a new series badge for release-specific wall paper submissions: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-badges/ticket/126

We can follow the model with this one. It doesn't need YAML since we won't scrape it, but we'll have to ask FESCo to give us a list of fas usernames of people with accepted Changes for each release.

how about this one? [[Image(f20-change.png)]]

how about this one? [[Image(f20-change.png)]]

f20 change proposed artwork
f20-change.png

f20 change proposed artwork
f20-change.png

fas usernames of owners of f20 accepted changes
f20-change-owners.txt

fas usernames of owners of f20 accepted changes
f20-change-owners.txt

I think the way this reward was given is not fair in some cases. Like have a look at hadoop.

matt proposed, and just coordinated but didn't do much work himself onit (as far as I can tell). The most of the work for it was done by rrati and me. Rob did the packaging work and I was doing the reviews on hadoop itself and most of the deps needed. Actually matt did even consider about comaintainig hadoop. As you can sse on the pkgdb, hadoop is maintained by Rob and me; matt only watches. At least the people who are the initial (on SCM-request) maintainers of new features / packages should be award with this, too.

I hope you would reconsider your decision about how / who this badge get's rewarded...

I think the way this reward was given is not fair in some cases. Like have a look at hadoop.

matt proposed, and just coordinated but didn't do much work himself onit (as far as I can tell). The most of the work for it was done by rrati and me. Rob did the packaging work and I was doing the reviews on hadoop itself and most of the deps needed. Actually matt did even consider about comaintainig hadoop. As you can sse on the pkgdb, hadoop is maintained by Rob and me; matt only watches. At least the people who are the initial (on SCM-request) maintainers of new features / packages should be award with this, too.

I hope you would reconsider your decision about how / who this badge get's rewarded...

Can you add another comment to this ticket with some links demonstrating what you're talking about? (Links to pkgdb acls, for instance). I'm open to awarding it, but I'd like proof in the ticket for transparency and posterity.

Can you add another comment to this ticket with some links demonstrating what you're talking about? (Links to pkgdb acls, for instance). I'm open to awarding it, but I'd like proof in the ticket for transparency and posterity.

As you can see [https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/hadoop in the pkgdb] Rob and me are owning / maintaining hadoop. I did the [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985087 review for hadoop], too. Here is some proof (thread on devel-ml) about me [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/183905.html reviewing the needed dependencies].

I hope this is enough proof. :-)

As you can see [https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/hadoop in the pkgdb] Rob and me are owning / maintaining hadoop. I did the [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985087 review for hadoop], too. Here is some proof (thread on devel-ml) about me [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/183905.html reviewing the needed dependencies].

I hope this is enough proof. :-)

Are we going to have F21 as well? Should I open ticket for that?

Are we going to have F21 as well? Should I open ticket for that?

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Attachments 2
Attached 7 years ago View Comment
Attached 7 years ago View Comment