On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 03:14:54PM +0200, theacruabru wrote:

The last item in the schedule (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle#Schedule_Methodolog...) lists "End of Life" as "GA of next-but-one release plus one month", however, a review of the "Unsupported Fedora Releases" table on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/End_of_life indicates the real end of life should be listed as "GA of next-but-one release plus four weeks"   This is important for migration planning purposes and the information presented in the wiki should be as precise and accurate as possible. Could someone with privilledges to edit this page make the necessary adjustment?

Wow, I had no idea we had a wiki list. And apparently I'm subscribed to it. This message probably is best on either the main devel list or on the release engineering list. Or, actually....

I've filed a FESCo ticket here https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1750

On 08/03/2017 01:39 PM, Justin W. Flory wrote:

On 07/18/2017 09:11 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:

...

Wow, I had no idea we had a wiki list. And apparently I'm subscribed to it. This message probably is best on either the main devel list or on the release engineering list. Or, actually....

I would be curious to know where this mailing list popped up from. I don't remember subscribing it and I don't remember finding one for the wiki when I looked before.

This list is iirc super old school, setup by Iliana Weller following the migration from Moin Moin to MediaWiki.

If it's public and open for people to subscribe to, then we may want to point people to the Infrastructure list or another more appropriate (and active) list than keep this one open.

The concept is to have a discussion place that is outside of the Talk: pages in MW. Normally in e.g. Wikipedia, a community stewarding a group of pages would keep their discussions in the Talk: pages, aiui. Because Fedora is using MW in a slightly different way by having people who work across the wiki -- and thus across subject-expert areas -- the best practice Iliana recommended was to have a mailing list where any meta discussions could occur, such as editing practices, archiving practices, setting wiki-wide policies, and so forth.

That content doesn't sound like it belongs on the Infrastructure list, but it might be taken by the Docs list?

Part of the reason for having a docs@ and a wiki@ was that formal, versioned docs are a different creature from a curate wiki. We wanted to welcome MW authors (people with experience & preference for that culture) without having to drag them into non-wiki content discussions.

History lesson, out!

Regards,

- Karsten