On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:09:21 +0100
Reindl Harald 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 to end in counte
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
>
> T
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
ike 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
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
2012/3/2 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> 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 somethin
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:53:55 -0500
Bill Nottingham 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.
> >
> > *
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:53:55 -0500,
Bill Nottingham 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 glibc doesn't me
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 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.
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman
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
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 mad
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 star
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
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 accounti
-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.
Yo
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 wh
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> 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:
> > Wha
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
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
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 p
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 curre
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
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Aleksandar Kurtakov"
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:45:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
&g
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> 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:
> >
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
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
Am 02.03.2012 17:23, schrieb Thomas Moschny:
> Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald :
>> 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
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
>>
>>
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 ac
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 04:29 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
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 5:56:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
> Am 02.03.2012 16:47, schrieb
On 03/02/2012 04:23 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald:
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 sta
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
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald :
> 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 service., e.g.
creatin
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 r
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 f
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 mailin
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 respons
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:09:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
>
> Am 02.03.2012 13:00
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:55:11 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" 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 across t
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
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
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'r
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 be
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:34:10 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" 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 for someone
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 at
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:16:28 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" 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 reporter in p
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 or
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:37:40PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> 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
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 + t
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 wo
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 packag
- Original Message -
> From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 3:08:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
>
> - Original Messa
- Original Message -
> From: "Vít Ondruch"
> 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):
> >
> >
Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: "Vít Ondruch"
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 Kurtako
ybody. 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.
This was meant to be read as " Automat
- Original Message -
> From: "Vít Ondruch"
> 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):
> >
> >
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 p
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> 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:
> &
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 -
A
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
https://
Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: "Matthias Runge"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 12:53, Mar
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthias Runge"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:34:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 02/03/12 13:24, Aleksandar Kurtako
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 sc
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
- Original Message -
> From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:27:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
>
> - Original
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
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> 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:
> >
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 r
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthias Runge"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:15:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 02/03/12 13:10, Aleksandar Kurtakov
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 doe
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthias Runge"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> 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 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 t
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 of
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 patc
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 o
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthias Runge"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:00:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtako
Dne 2.3.2012 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
Subject: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
I am a feature owne
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
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
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 to
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 comm
- Original Message -
> From: "Marcela Mašláňová"
> 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:
> >
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
On 03/02/2012 12:52 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>
>> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
>> Subject:
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 mig
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
> Subject: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> I am a feature owner for
On 03/02/2012 12:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> 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
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 poli
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 attention
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
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
95 matches
Mail list logo
