On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 09:23:10PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 20:58, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > No, it isn't. It's great ;)
>
> Why? I doubt fighting maintainers is a good thing for Fedora.
Why are you assuming the added EPEL maintainers want to fight
the existing
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 20:09 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made
> > contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
>
> Newly added EPEL
If you're happy with the current version 1.0.49 from rawhide being
branched for epel9, then the stalled process would be a good fit.
With collaborator permissions on epel* branches, you can request the
epel9 branch, merge commits from rawhide to epel9, create builds, and
create bodhi updates.
If
Jumping in on this... I opened BZ 2095512 a few weeks ago about getting
pure-ftpd for EPEL 9, with a follow-up a week ago. There's already an
EPEL 8 branch, so I guess that maintainer was notified (or do all get
notified)?
Looking at src.fedoraproject.org, it doesn't look like any of the
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:30 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2022 21:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > Maintainers are custodians and do not own the package.
>
> This becomes true with the new EPEL policy. I think it should be
> revisited to follow Fedora's non-responsive maintainer
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:09 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
>
> Newly added EPEL
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:09 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
>
> Newly added EPEL
On 29/06/2022 21:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Maintainers are custodians and do not own the package.
This becomes true with the new EPEL policy. I think it should be
revisited to follow Fedora's non-responsive maintainer procedure with an
explicit FESCo approval on a case-by-case basis.
--
On 29/06/2022 20:58, Miro Hrončok wrote:
No, it isn't. It's great ;)
Why? I doubt fighting maintainers is a good thing for Fedora.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Hi Robbie,
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 12:02 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> In this case, because no one needinfo'd the maintainer, the EPEL
> policy
> can be slower (two weeks compared to the minimum ten days for
> nonresponsive). Also, a literal reading of the EPEL policy says that
> the same person
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 14:52, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 20:32, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > Yes, they can. So can a lot of other people and things in Fedora.
>
> Only proven-packagers in limited situations or people who have been
> granted
On 29. 06. 22 20:50, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 29/06/2022 20:32, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Yes, they can. So can a lot of other people and things in Fedora.
Only proven-packagers in limited situations or people who have been granted
access by the package owner.
This isn't other
On 29/06/2022 20:32, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Yes, they can. So can a lot of other people and things in Fedora.
Only proven-packagers in limited situations or people who have been
granted access by the package owner.
This isn't other distros where a package maintainer is a defacto dictator
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 14:10, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
EPEL bugs.
Newly added EPEL maintainers can make any changes to Fedora branches. I
don't like that.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel writes:
> On 29/06/2022 01:18, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
>
>> You might also be interested in the Stalled EPEL Requests
>> policy[1]. This would've allowed you to get permissions to branch the
>> package for EPEL without going through the non-responsive maintainer
>>
On 29/06/2022 01:18, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
You might also be interested in the Stalled EPEL Requests policy[1]. This
would've allowed you to get permissions to branch the package for EPEL without
going through the non-responsive maintainer process.
This policy looks like a package hijack
Maxwell G via devel writes:
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:30:14 PM CDT Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> I have started the responsive maintainer process due to lack of contact
>> through bugzilla mail. Specifically, this is about an epel9 branch,
>> which has been repeatedly requested since March
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:30:14 PM CDT Robbie Harwood wrote:
> I have started the responsive maintainer process due to lack of contact
> through bugzilla mail. Specifically, this is about an epel9 branch,
> which has been repeatedly requested since March (including an offer to
> maintain the
Alex Chernyakhovsky writes:
> I just replied on bugzilla. No one has attempted to contact me before.
Well... as a Fedora maintainer, there's an expectation that you'll read
your bugzilla email from time to time :) I know stuff happens, and from
your bz comment it sounds like there was some
20 matches
Mail list logo
