On 07/07/10 20:16, Thomas Spura wrote:
To get such a button, to apply for becoming real maintainership makes
this possible and is the easiest way, because it doesn't need e.g. a
fast track procedure or anyone agreeing from fesco or anyone to change
it manually in pkgdb.
When you have
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:42:57 -0400
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
I have got news. The other day, my ACL request (that I made last
year!) for F-10 was approved by ixs. 1 minute later, it was set back
to Awaiting Review.
Anyone have any idea of
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
I sent him an email as you asked, once again. And didn't get a
response, once again.
Good morning. Sorry for the non-responsiveness. Work has been kinda taxing
for some time now... Someone pointed me at the discussion here.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Hi all,
I'm initiating a fast track procedure for libsndfile -- a security bug
has been reported for over a year, and there has been no response from
maintainer
We made many
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:53:29 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
If some provenpackager want's to maintain it, why don't they take
ownership?
Because I can fix the occasional broken dependency, [...]
... which hopefully will not be a problem anymore with a revised
push process. You
Am Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:46:44 +0200
schrieb Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at:
Thomas Spura wrote:
For me it doesn't make much sense to be co-maintainer everywhere,
but actually:
1. doing all the tasks alone.
I don't see the big problem. I'm comaintaining a few packages in
that way
On Tuesday, July 06, 2010 01:05:57 Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Hi all,
I'm initiating a fast track procedure for libsndfile -- a security bug
has been reported for over a year, and there has been no response from
maintainer
I've
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:21:29AM +1000, Chris Jones wrote:
This seems to be happening a lot lately regarding maintainers and/or
co-maintainers losing interest in their projects somewhere along the
line and just stopping development without any warning and
notification to other members who
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote:
Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request
would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough
timeframe (say 8 weeks).
That way packages with AWOL maintainers could grow
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote:
Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request
would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough
timeframe (say 8 weeks).
That way packages with AWOL maintainers could
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:32:06AM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:21:29AM +1000, Chris Jones wrote:
This seems to be happening a lot lately regarding maintainers and/or
co-maintainers losing interest in their projects somewhere along the
line and just stopping
Am Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:57:06 +0100
schrieb Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:32:06AM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:21:29AM +1000, Chris Jones wrote:
This seems to be happening a lot lately regarding maintainers
and/or co-maintainers
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:26:21PM +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
If this is implemented, the 'next' co-maintainer should become the real
maintainer after another 8 weeks non-commiting by the former maintainer.
I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a
maintainer
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a
maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all
co-maintainers be equal?
Because this ensures that there is a well defined person who
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100, Richard wrote:
So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more
maintainers.
Why 0? Who will be notified about bugzilla tickets? Who will receive
mail sent to the PACKAGE-owner Fedora e-mail alias?
For each package in the collection, there ought
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100, Richard wrote:
So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more
maintainers.
Why 0? Who will be notified about bugzilla tickets? Who will receive
mail sent to the PACKAGE-owner Fedora
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:54:29AM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100, Richard wrote:
So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more
maintainers.
Why 0? Who will be notified about bugzilla
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:31:32PM +0300, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote:
Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request
would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:00:23PM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
If anyone wants to help code this, I think the way to do it is to implement
an events queue in pkgdb. With the queue we can do two things -- first,
have the pkgdb send nagmail when an acl request has not been answered.
second
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:21:29 +1000
Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.au wrote:
This seems to be happening a lot lately regarding maintainers and/or
co-maintainers losing interest in their projects somewhere along the
line and just stopping development without any warning and
notification to
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:26:21PM +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
If this is implemented, the 'next' co-maintainer should become the
real maintainer after another 8 weeks non-commiting by the former
maintainer.
I
Sven Lankes wrote:
Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request
would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough
timeframe (say 8 weeks).
That way packages with AWOL maintainers could grow co-maintainers
without going through the complicated
Thomas Spura wrote:
For me it doesn't make much sense to be co-maintainer everywhere, but
actually:
1. doing all the tasks alone.
I don't see the big problem. I'm comaintaining a few packages in that way
for a while (xchat and mingw32-nsis come to my mind) and that just works
(though I do
Till Maas wrote:
We can use uberpackagers ;-) or maybe package-monkeys, make it a SIG
and then it is afaik already covered by Fedora procedures, because a SIG
or group of packagers can own a package, like e.g. the lvm-team.
Orcan, Richard, who else is in?
As an inclusionist and someone who
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
If #maintainers == 0 then the package is either just sitting there (as
long as there are no serious bugs), or is being best-effort maintained
by provenpackagers, at least until that becomes a
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
And IMHO 8 weeks is too much, it should be somewhere between 2 and 4.
Kevin Kofler
I initially thought 8 weeks was too long also, but I guess people have
busy lifestyles. 4 weeks is probably more realistic.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a
maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all
co-maintainers be equal?
Good point. I think, just like you, that there should be a list of owners
rather than just 1 owner.
As
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 01:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
(BTW, it's quite funny that the main GTK+-based IRC client is maintained
almost exclusively by a KDE SIG member. ;-) )
Well, I use the xchat-gnome fork. I suspect quite a lot of other GNOME-y
folks do...that one's maintained by Brian
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Some mailing list like dumping-gro...@fedoraproject.org. I am sure
someone can come up with a better name.
[snip]
Yes. And everyone who is subscribed to the above mailing list is a
potential maintainer of those packages with 0 principal maintainers.
Well, you'd have to
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:56:41 +0200,
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a
maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all
co-maintainers be equal?
Good point. I
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:56:41AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a
maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all
co-maintainers be equal?
It was set up this way because of
Hi all,
I'm initiating a fast track procedure for libsndfile -- a security bug
has been reported for over a year, and there has been no response from
maintainer:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488364
Here is the fesco ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/412
Regards,
--
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Hi all,
I'm initiating a fast track procedure for libsndfile -- a security bug
has been reported for over a year, and there has been no response from
maintainer
We made many attempts to reach him last year. See:
This seems to be happening a lot lately regarding maintainers and/or
co-maintainers losing interest in their projects somewhere along the
line and just stopping development without any warning and
notification to other members who may be interested.
I am wondering, is the process efficient enough
34 matches
Mail list logo
