On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:09:21 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if you are working the whole month on a different component
and give no single feedback to a new reported bug you are
ending in frustrated submitters - if they get a assigned
they do not feel ignored
This is going
Am 02.03.2012 17:55, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On 03/02/2012 10:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
* writing the systemd-unit takes 2 minutes for postfix
* no need for package anything, install put it locally in /etc/systemd/system
* so testing takes another 3 minutes, no compile needed
This
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
tremendous work thus I'm wondering if there is something preventing us
from automating the non
On 03/02/2012 11:20 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
tremendous work thus I'm wondering if
On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be working on a new
upstream release and not paying
Dne 2.3.2012 12:02, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a):
On 03/02/2012 11:20 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
Subject: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
I am a feature owner for a feature
On 03/02/2012 12:12 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be
the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
tremendous work thus I'm wondering if there is something preventing
us
from
On 03/02/2012 11:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Actually I support such initiative. We have also filled a few bugs
against Ruby components which needs some love due to Ruby update and
it happens that we have no response. If there would be tool that
reports yes, the maintainer was active in some
- Original Message -
From: Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 1:57:11 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 03/02/2012 12:52 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking of current package
maintainers getting commit
Dne 2.3.2012 12:56, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson napsal(a):
On 03/02/2012 11:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Actually I support such initiative. We have also filled a few bugs
against Ruby components which needs some love due to Ruby update and
it happens that we have no response. If there would be
On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I'm afraid we end up with more bureaucracy than we have now. I'm not
against tracking some statistics, so you can look up who is active and
probably will answer in few days, but I'd rather not use it for the
unresponsive process.
Marcela
I'm
On 03/02/2012 01:00 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking
Dne 2.3.2012 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedoradevel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
Subject: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:00:32 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar
On 03/02/2012 11:47 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
helping anyway.
I disagree it certainly does matter.
For example let's take these two [1] [2] bugs that are
On 02/03/12 13:10, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
What about bug reporter being unable to fix the mentioned bug?
Oh no. I'm mean unable to fix because of missing knowledge, not
unable because of missing commit rights.
I might file a bug against kernel, but I'm definitely not the right
person to
On 03/02/2012 02:00 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking
On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
So I would make a contra-proposal.
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status new in a week -
give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb so he/she can fix it himself.
I really think this is way more fare and people that
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová
On 03/02/2012 01:13 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:47 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
helping anyway.
I disagree it certainly does matter.
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:15:51 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 13:10, Aleksandar
On 03/02/2012 12:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Units again:)
Are you trying create some metrics because of units on whole
distribution? It simply won't fit to all groups.
No I'm only using units or rather the systemd migration process since
i'm most familiar with it.
( been doing it for 3
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:16:28 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
So I would make a contra
On 02/03/12 13:06, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Yes, I would be afraid that reporters won't be able to fix it
properly. Even if I'm a provenpackager, I don't commit into
packages not related to mine.
Yes, I guess, that's a more general problem. But since we have proven
packagers, they might jump in
- Original Message -
From: Aleksandar Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:27:04 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
- Original Message
On 02/03/12 13:24, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Well, the whole idea came in a second so someone should refine it.
FWIW the period should be long enough - in my eyes not less than a
months so if noone responded in like 3 months the fix would no longer
be at least quick. And as always we trust
On 03/02/2012 12:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Well, Fedora ships packages. I might be stupid but would someone please explain
me how can one deliver fixed/improved packages to users without do at least a
bit of packaging work. I don't see a way this to happen.
Spec files are no rocket
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:34:11 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 13:24, Aleksandar
. You read the Automating the
NonResponsiveMaintainers policy as remove the original maintainer or
punish him but it might be very well read in opposite way, exactly as
you proposed. There is no need for drama.
Vit
Alex
Alex
--
Matthias Rungemru...@matthias-runge.de
mru
On 03/02/2012 12:03 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Are the changes enforced? I don't think so ...
Interesting which begs the question to which purpose do the guideline
serve if no one is actually making sure that it's being followed?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 02/03/12 13:16, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Not to mention bug reporter not necessarily understanding the full
consequences of a change - change that might look trivial but has
world-breaking effects.
And FWIW, four week vacations are common in this part of the world...
- Panu -
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:34:10 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 03/02/2012 12:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Well, Fedora ships packages
On 02/03/12 13:37, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I really have no idea nor I would have the time to deal with such
thing anytime soon as it will also require development work if
accepted. The current process works fine for me. I just wanted to
show that there are better way than throwing out
- Original Message -
From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message
read the Automating the
NonResponsiveMaintainers policy as remove the original maintainer
or punish him but it might be very well read in opposite way,
exactly as you proposed. There is no need for drama.
This was meant to be read as Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers
policy
Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: Vít Ondruchvondr...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov
- Original Message -
From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:54:52 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message
- Original Message -
From: Aleksandar Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 3:08:26 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
- Original Message
On 03/02/2012 12:41 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Nope, if you are a packager already and you have a unit file you want to push
in my package just ask me about commit rights via pkgdb and a mail explaining
it and I'll definetely approve your request and I'm pretty sure that a number
of
On 03/02/2012 12:12 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be
On 03/02/2012 01:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I other words, all is proposal would be doing is to cause bureaucratic
churn.
Well it only causes bureaucratic churn or otherwise inconvenience for
non responding maintainers as in maintainers that do not respond to a
report in timely manner +
On 03/02/2012 03:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Process looks like this:
* Guidelines updated
* Someone notices that the package does not follow the guidelines (Note that
this step does not require that the Guidelines were updated... the
packaging bug could have been missed during review
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:16:28 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
So I would make a contra-proposal.
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status new in a
week - give commit rights to the
Am 02.03.2012 12:02, schrieb Marcela Mašláňová:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be working on a new
upstream release and not paying
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:34:10 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
One way to achieve that would be that one could do so by becoming
proven packager through some kind of mentoring process ( which does
not exist btw ) I would think.
I would think the implied process
Am 02.03.2012 12:47, schrieb Marcela Mašláňová:
Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
helping anyway.
IT DOES HELP
it is a hughe difference for a bugreporter if he feels
a month ignored or
Am 02.03.2012 13:00, schrieb Matthias Runge:
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're
On 03/02/2012 04:27 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 03:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Process looks like this:
* Guidelines updated
* Someone notices that the package does not follow the guidelines
(Note that
this step does not require that the Guidelines were updated...
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
tremendous work thus
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:55:11 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a packager already nor can I become one since I dont want to
maintain a single package in the distribution since it does not
scratch my ich but I would like to be able to fix things if I do
come
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:09:00 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Am 02.03.2012 13:00, schrieb
Am 02.03.2012 16:47, schrieb Karel Zak:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive
On 03/02/2012 03:47 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
What's your project boy? .. create a huge collection of dirty words?;-)
Sorry not following where you are going with this?
IMHO it's bad idea.
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
JBG
--
devel
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
you are missing the differences between ignored, assigend and fixed
where did you see a line that a bug must be fixed in whatever time?
you did not because it is not there
the point is that if a reporter takes time to file a
On 03/02/2012 03:45 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
You are looking for re-review of packages mentioned many times before.
But we have problems to find reviewers for new one, so I don't believe
we would find enough people for this.
If it's an manual process sure I can understand why it's hard to
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
what are all these maintainers doing?
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
scripts did more than just starting / stopping a
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:13:44PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
because:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2 attempts of no contact, the reporter asks if
On 03/02/2012 04:23 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net:
what are all these maintainers doing?
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
scripts
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 5:56:10 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Am 02.03.2012 16:47, schrieb Karel Zak
On 03/02/2012 04:29 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:13:44PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
because:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2
On 03/02/2012 10:04 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with posting
the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post a
script and show that it can be done.
Rahul
--
On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with posting
the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post a
script and show that it can be done.
Do we have
Am 02.03.2012 17:20, schrieb Karel Zak:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
you are missing the differences between ignored, assigend and fixed
where did you see a line that a bug must be fixed in whatever time?
you did not because it is not there
the point is
Am 02.03.2012 17:23, schrieb Thomas Moschny:
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
what are all these maintainers doing?
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
Am 02.03.2012 17:35, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services like postfix/dbmail and nothing happens, even
not if the one you called boy submits patches, unit-files
and pinging maintainers since 3 releases with the result get
ignored
On 03/02/2012 10:15 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with
posting
the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:45:24 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Yes the automation would just
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Cc: Aleksandar Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:45:14 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers
On 03/02/2012 10:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
* writing the systemd-unit takes 2 minutes for postfix
* no need for package anything, install put it locally in /etc/systemd/system
* so testing takes another 3 minutes, no compile needed
This timeline is not reasonable. It typically takes half an
On 03/02/2012 04:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
What access do you need? If you need something to test and you don't
have access, run your own instance.
Here you assume that people have enough hw or vm capable hardware to do
so which is not in my case.
And this only requires copying the
Am 02.03.2012 17:55, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
Have you ever thought that for number of people this systemd units might be
something
they know nothing about and they need to spend time on it?
have you ever thought that i wrote the systemd-units for nearly all
relevant services on my
On 03/02/2012 04:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This timeline is not reasonable. It typically takes half an hour to an
hour to write and test it properly
Add another half an hour for an individual not familiar with the spec
file making the necessary adjustments to the spec file and test rebuild
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 03:27:24PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 03:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Process looks like this:
* Guidelines updated
* Someone notices that the package does not follow the guidelines (Note that
this step does not require that the Guidelines
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:56:47 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 03/02/2012 04:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
What access do you need? If you
On 03/02/2012 10:26 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 04:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
What access do you need? If you need something to test and you don't
have access, run your own instance.
Here you assume that people have enough hw or vm capable hardware to do
so which is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/02/2012 10:45 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
for a simple service like postfix or dbmail? surely not!
I disagree.
i even sent a bunlde of systemd-units to the devel-list
As I informed you at that time, sending a bundle is not very useful.
You
On 03/02/2012 05:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Again, what access do you need and who have you asked for it?
It's pretty obvious that this is a proposal I made today thus I have
asked no one for it nor can I since infrastructure has made it clear to
me when I asked them to fix my user
On 03/02/2012 10:53 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 05:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Again, what access do you need and who have you asked for it?
It's pretty obvious that this is a proposal I made today thus I have
asked no one for it nor can I since infrastructure has made it
On 03/02/2012 05:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
That was completely uncalled for.
I disagree
I know for a fact that you are well aware of the EOL and other script
that is used with bugzilla so you were well aware this was technically
achievable and you then your self go about asking me to
On Friday, March 2, 2012, 12:23:51 PM, Jóhann wrote:
On 03/02/2012 05:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Again, what access do you need and who have you asked for it?
It's pretty obvious that this is a proposal I made today thus I have
asked no one for it nor can I since infrastructure has made it
On 03/02/2012 11:20 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 05:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
That was completely uncalled for.
I disagree
Let me put in another way then. Cut that out. Talking about your world
vs my world makes it personal not to mention sarcastic there is zero
room
Lets drop this subthread please?
I don't think it's doing anyone any good to see you two hitting back
and forth.
If you must, take it to private email?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
An bugzilla script that acts something like if maintainer has not
responded to a bug report with the status new in a week ( or some
other time ) the non responsive maintainers policy automatically
starts taking effect.
Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) said:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2 attempts of no contact, the reporter asks if anyone knows how
to contact the maintainer.
* After another 7 days, the reporter posts a formal request to the
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:53:55 -0500,
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
2) It doesn't solve the problem of a non-responsive maintainer where the
requester *DOESN'T* want to take over the package.
For example, just because I might have a an issue getting a needed change
into
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:53:55 -0500
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) said:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2 attempts of no contact, the reporter asks if anyone
knows how to contact the maintainer.
2012/3/2 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
tremendous work thus I'm wondering if there
On 03/02/2012 07:34 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Related to this, Pierre-YvesChibon wrote a tool to check a bunch of
things for a fedora account, so you could at least see if someone was
still active in some areas while not in others:
https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-active-user
If you are running
this would instantly take
effect which is not the case here.
We are just talking about automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers
policy as is so instead of an reporter to manually perform these steps
( which they can perform at any time now btw ) those steps would be
automated...
JBG
--
devel mailing
On Friday, March 2, 2012, 4:21:13 PM, Jóhann wrote:
Some people seem to be confusing this like this would instantly take
effect which is not the case here.
We are just talking about automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers
policy as is so instead of an reporter to manually perform these steps
93 matches
Mail list logo
