Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:06:58 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> Because that is perfectly acceptable. It is not required for a sponsor
>> to do a package review for a person who is not a packager.
That must be a recent policy change. (It used to be required.)
> setti
> "MS" == Michael Schwendt writes:
MS> setting fedora-review+ hides the ticket from the needsponsor tracker
MS> queue. You've deleted that part when quoting me. Why?
Because it's not relevant to the point I was making.
- J<
___
devel mailing list
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:06:58 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> MS> The ticket blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR. No idea why you've approved the
> MS> review officially, setting the fedora-review+ flag without being
> MS> able to sponsor the new contributor.
>
> Because that is perfectly acceptable. It
> "MS" == Michael Schwendt writes:
MS> The ticket blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR. No idea why you've approved the
MS> review officially, setting the fedora-review+ flag without being
MS> able to sponsor the new contributor.
Because that is perfectly acceptable. It is not required for a sponsor
to do
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:09:06PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:40:41 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > > > these packages (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonludlam/opam/)
> > > > about a year ago and never heard back, so... technically I guess I
> > > > co
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:40:41 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > these packages (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonludlam/opam/)
> > > about a year ago and never heard back, so... technically I guess I
> > > could proceed with the non-responsive maintainer policy. But is that
> > > the
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:47:32PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > The story with this package (and I think there were some others) is
> > that they are required for 'opam' which is a source-based OCaml
> > packaging tool (think: Perl and t
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> The story with this package (and I think there were some others) is
> that they are required for 'opam' which is a source-based OCaml
> packaging tool (think: Perl and the ‘cpan’ command). Jon Ludlam
> turned up wanting to get opam into
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 05:56, Ben Rosser wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What is the right thing to do when a package's review is approved, but
> > the package never gets imported into the distribution because the
> >
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 05:56, Ben Rosser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the right thing to do when a package's review is approved, but
> the package never gets imported into the distribution because the
> packager subsequently becomes non-responsive?
>
> Is the non-responsive maintainer policy a
Hi,
What is the right thing to do when a package's review is approved, but
the package never gets imported into the distribution because the
packager subsequently becomes non-responsive?
Is the non-responsive maintainer policy appropriate, or should the
review be resubmitted entirely?
I've seen
11 matches
Mail list logo
