For the last several cycles, Beta freeze and updates-testing
enablement for Branched have happened on the same day. However,
the updates policy is still worded as if there is a period
between them - it defines them as separate events and defines
different karma/time requirements for updates during this period
(which doesn't actually exist). This mushes the sections on the
two events into one, and removes the policy for the now
non-existent time period between them.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
Add an item to the update list to resolve
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3540. I use the link to
the issue page in JIRA. There's also https://red.ht/FRCL but that
requires login so is not suitable for a public documentation.
FESCo voted in https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3498:
> The LXQt SIG is granted a permanent exception for the LXQt Desktop
> package set, though this does not obviate the requirement for
> exception requests involving packages not from the LXQt project.
> APPROVED (+6, 0, 0)
After the Fedora 41 elections, the terms were not correctly updated,
leading to an off-by-one error in the Fedora releases. This sets them
back to the correct current values.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com>
This implements the agreement from FESCo meeting 11.11.2025:
> AGREED: Approval means an ack from at least one FESCo member
> (excluding the request creator, if it is a FESCo member). As soon as
> it happens, it's considered approved (+6,1,-0)
A "lightweight" stalled request process was added in #94. This was
based on the existing Stalled EPEL Request process. When this was
initially proposed, several members of the EPEL Steering Committee (ESC)
hoped this could be used as a unified policy for both Fedora and EPEL,
effectively obsoleting the EPEL policy.
However, at some point along the way this new process gained a step of
filing a FESCo issue and waiting for an explicit vote. There is no
equivalent to this step in the EPEL process; maintainers merely meet the
criteria and then releng adds them to the package. Based on discussion
at the ESC meeting and in epel#347, the additional friction of this step
is reason enough to keep a separate EPEL process. I also noticed that
several FESCo members expressed uncertainly about being able to review
specific changes related to this process.
I think the best path forward is to remove the FESCo vote requirement.
FESCo would no longer have the burden to review each individual proposed
change, or each individual proposed co-maintainer, or the suitability of
a package being added to an EPEL release (or an older Fedora release).
Maintainers would avoid the burden of filing two separate issues during
this process. To offset the lack of the FESCo voting period, the time
period for the last step should be extended from 7 to 14 days. We
should also avoid referring to this as a trial process, as that lacks a
clear definition as far as I can tell and caused some confusion among
the ESC members. Finally, this also adds a missing piece from the EPEL
process, which is that the new co-maintainer agrees to be the default
EPEL bugzilla assignee if the request is for the purpose of requesting a
new EPEL branch.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/#stalled_epel_requestshttps://pagure.io/epel/issue/347
If there is an overwhelming majority of negative votes, we should
just reject the proposal. There is nothing to discuss and it's
better to allow that to happen immediately in the ticket.
This reworks this page a bit moving orphan / retired into seperate areas
for better clarity. Also notes that no retirements should happen after
final freeze has started and that during beta freeze, no retirements
will take place, but once lifted they will all be processed.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Fenzi <kevin@scrye.com>
Previously we didn't mention the Fedora and EPEL updates policies as
things that provenpackagers should be familiar with, but they are quite
important. This change adds those links, and also converts those and
other links from a long sentence to a bullet point list. Outdated links
are also switched to current ones.
The mentioned two pages were not using semantic linebreaks. To make
things more consistent, and support Pagure pull request review, add
them.
Also, remove `link:` prefix from https:// URLs, which are formatted as
links even without it.
Also, change some strange formatting choices to be standard lists.
Replace some links to old Wiki pages that redirect to docs.fp.o with
the redirect targets.
Wiki link to _Forbidden Items_ page is completely removed. That Wiki
page does not have a redirect, just a notice that the page is obsolete
and a link to the new legal docs. Since the new legal docs do not have
a corresponding page, the Forbidden Items page is really old, and there
does not seem to be anything there that could not be derived from the
general rules, the page really seems obsolete without replacement, thus
any reference to it can be removed.
