Proof reading team

Mark Hymers markh at
Thu Sep 6 02:50:38 PDT 2001

On Wed, 05, Sep, 2001 at 09:25:07PM -0700, jbauman at wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 04:48:00PM +0100, Mark Hymers wrote:
> > What I'd like is for one person to keep a list of proof readers and
> > then, once I've added the first draft of instructions to CVS, for them
> > to look at them and the proof-reading leader-type-person to sign them
> > off once they have been checked.
> Mark, 
> I would like to have the checkoff process more an integral part of what
> we're doing. I also want to make the information public, so that
> everyone can see what's been checked off and what still needs to be
> done. How about if we use Bugzilla the way it was designed, meaning that
> once you have applied new changes to CVS, you change the state of the
> bug to "resolved." Then, as items are proof read, I will change the 
> state to "verified." This way we have a record within the tools we're 
> already using of what has been and still needs to be done.
That seems the clearest way of doing it.  The best thing is probably if
we wait for LFS-3.0 to be released in a few weeks.  The reason for this
is that there will possibly (probably?) be a mailing list reorganisation
at this point in time where we'll (hopefully) get a couple of new BLFS
mailing lists to divide up the traffic.  This is of course all up to
Gerard.  Once LFS-3.0 is out, we could have everything done so far QA'd
then the system will work for new additions.  Does this seem reasonable?

> I think that makes for a cleaner and clearer process. It will also keep 
> me from having to do the keeping track in a more manual, and possibly 
> less accurate way. What do you think?
Yeah - we have bugzilla so we may as well use it!


Mark Hymers					 BLFS Project Leader
markh at

More information about the blfs-book mailing list