ons 2011-11-23 klockan 12:30 +0100 skrev Vít Ondruch:
> it is interesting that there are still some packages
> from F14 and older Fedora releases. That is sign that these packages are
> un-maintained and they are FTBFS.
Indeed, and many more are. But we do have a process for dealing with
unmain
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:49:00 +0100, I wrote:
> [...]
> some level of perseverance, some sort of prove that they are willing to
> [...]
s/prove/proof/
--
Not an attempt at fixing all embarrassing typos, however. ;)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:18:11 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> I didn't imply that there should be less documentation or guidelines,
> only that it's more than a person can "grok" at one time.
That's too vague for me to understand it.
Some topics are covered by entire books, for example even several
This is just a collection of random thougths on some of the ideas you
presented in this thread.
> Nobody is putting burden on anyone other then the maintainers themselves.
>
> Either they do it directly to themselves ... or it's being
> done by other sloppy/non responsive/absent maintainers indire
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 08:18 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> >
> >> but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
> >> documentation/guidelines there are.
> >
> > Hey, :) you kno
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:18:11AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> >
> >> but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
> >> documentation/guidelines there are.
> >
> > Hey, :)
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:54:05 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:24:46 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > But I remember reports that contained similar information.
> > Therefore some kind of script must have existed. Maybe it was
> > related to some FTBFS reports where someone else r
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
>
>> but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
>> documentation/guidelines there are.
>
> Hey, :) you know what? Troublesome newbies would like even more
> documentation, gui
Dne 22.11.2011 18:55, Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>> "VO" == Vít Ondruch writes:
> VO> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle,
> VO> to publish a list of packages which were not touched by it
> VO> maintainer in previous release.
>
> I certainly hope you real
and non-responsive,
> Alexander Kurtakov
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Fenzi"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:36:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
&g
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
> documentation/guidelines there are.
Hey, :) you know what? Troublesome newbies would like even more
documentation, guidelines and policy documents. Also a book about koji,
bodhi, package
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:24:46 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> But I remember reports that contained similar information. Therefore
> some kind of script must have existed. Maybe it was related to some
> FTBFS reports where someone else reported that his script would have
> reported certain packages to b
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
>
> RS> Yes. If the informal review is for an existing packager then,
> RS> there's no guarantee that a sponsor will even see that informal
> RS> review because there's no requirement for a sponsor to
> "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
RS> Yes. If the informal review is for an existing packager then,
RS> there's no guarantee that a sponsor will even see that informal
RS> review because there's no requirement for a sponsor to approve the
RS> review request in that scenario.
You must have misun
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:30:47 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
> informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own horn'
> so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a good prospect as a
> packager.
Similar answer as before
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
>
> RS> How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
> RS> informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own
> RS> horn' so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a
> "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
RS> How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
RS> informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own
RS> horn' so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a good prospect as
RS> a packager.
Well, the documentation says to incl
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:25:35 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> question: How does a sponsor find future sponsors? Just because I
>> complete an informal or formal review doesn't mean that a sponsor sees
>> it, unless there's some sy
On 11/22/2011 06:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> > That problem can be solved technically as in be made transparent to
>> > reports and maintainers ( reporters using our bugzilla but
>> > maintainers using their relevant upstream one )
> Not sure how off hand. ;(
>
The rough idea I had in my head
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:25:35 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> [...]
> question: How does a sponsor find future sponsors? Just because I
> complete an informal or formal review doesn't mean that a sponsor sees
> it, unless there's some system that provides visibility that I'm
> unaware of.
Well, one w
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:26:27 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> Also along these lines...
>
> Perhaps this has been discussed before I'm not aware of it but do we
> really need to hold up a package because the submitter needs a
> sponsor?
>
> What I mean by that is, if I'm not misunderstanding the pro
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:59:58 +, TH (Tom) wrote:
> > Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list
> > could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential
> > sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for
> > months without doing an
Also along these lines...
Perhaps this has been discussed before I'm not aware of it but do we
really need to hold up a package because the submitter needs a
sponsor?
What I mean by that is, if I'm not misunderstanding the process, that
a person who submits their first package must be sponsored b
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> > > This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
> > > can seem to agree on what
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 11:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And still there have been self-nominations before.
>>> You could look up FESCo tickets of past nominations.
>>
>> I never
I'd like to add/note:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Become_a_co-maintainer
is another way to become a packager.
Simply work on/with an existing maintainer on their package (submit bug
reports, help test, submit patches, etc) and then ask them if the
>> "TH" == Tom Hughes writes:
>
> TH> As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
> TH> if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
> TH> sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
> TH> more like it's just one thing that ma
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
> > can seem to agree on what an appropriate "sign of life" would be, no
> > has made a serious FESCo pr
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:16:30 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Hum not so sure that will effectively work at least the cleanup
> process needs have take place before we start the next development
> cycle atleast no later then GA so basically the "performance" review
> of the maintainer would
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:57:24AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
> why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
Because demanding that other people do work generally doesn't result in
t
On 11/22/2011 11:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt
> wrote:
>>
>> And still there have been self-nominations before.
>> You could look up FESCo tickets of past nominations.
>
> I never thought about that, perhaps it should be added to the contributo
On 11/22/2011 05:27 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
> why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
>
> Does that governing body only exist to say yay or nay to others proposals?
FESCo exists
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
>
>> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
>> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
>> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new pack
> "TH" == Tom Hughes writes:
TH> As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
TH> if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
TH> sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
TH> more like it's just one thing that may help.
It
On 22/11/11 17:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list
> could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential
> sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for
> months without doing any package review
> "VO" == Vít Ondruch writes:
VO> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle,
VO> to publish a list of packages which were not touched by it
VO> maintainer in previous release.
I certainly hope you realize that there are very many packages in the
distribution that sim
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
> > still come in by packaging a new package. I think we re
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:05:37AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III :
> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
> > still come in by packaging a new package. I think
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:32:56 +0100, VO (Vít) wrote:
> I remember
> at leas one example from history when I was not able to reach the
> maintainer and at the end he was quite angry that I was so daring to
> call him unresponsive, even though I wanted just to help him. Also,
> there are other pa
On 11/22/2011 04:51 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:38:23 +,
>"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
>> I think the only way to achieve something like this for maintainership
>> we need to drop the ownership module so either nobody owns a
>> package/component in the pro
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:05:37 -0600,
Richard Shaw wrote:
> To bring it to a more personal level, I have no idea if I've done or
> proven myself enough to become a sponsor or not. If I am deficient in
> an area, there's currently no formal feedback mechanism for me to know
> in what areas I ne
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III :
> One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
> packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
> still come in by packaging a new package. I think we really want most of
> the new packagers coming in as co-maintainer
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:38:23 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
>
> I think the only way to achieve something like this for maintainership
> we need to drop the ownership module so either nobody owns a
> package/component in the project or relevant SIG owns the package.
We can alr
Dne 22.11.2011 17:44, Chris Adams napsal(a):
> Once upon a time, Vít Ondruch said:
>> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
>> publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
>> previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
Once upon a time, Vít Ondruch said:
> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
> publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
> previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
> stepped up and they would be granted the co-
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:32:56PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
> publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
> previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
> stepped up and they
Dne 21.11.2011 21:56, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" napsal(a):
> Given that I'm migrating bunch of legacy init script to native systemd
> ones and I have come many packages that seem that maintainer(s) have
> deserted them but for some bizarre reason we still continue to package
> and keep rolling them b
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:57:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 01:48 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov w
On 11/22/2011 01:48 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> The problem here is that in my eyes there are no inactive contributors and
> there shouldn't be anything preventing people from contributing (even if it's
> one update per year).
> While I agree that projects tha
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:34:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 12:49 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov
On 11/22/2011 12:49 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> Hmm, haven't this started with if you're not ready to reply to every
> bugreport we will ban you because we don't want your contribution?
If you are referring to
"
Well if people want more controversial proposal of sign of live that's
relativ
On 11/22/2011 12:35 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> Comments inline.
>
> - Original Message -
>>
> We seem to disagree here. I value every maintainer even one that steps in
> once in a year. And yes I value him more than someone that would open 10
> bugreports without instructions how
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:42:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 12:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:57:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote
On 11/22/2011 12:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> You don't improve distribution, when you start bullying contributors. Bunch
> of people were already annoyed with your proposal.
Please provide explanation further how I was bullying contributors.
Thanks
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fe
On 11/22/2011 10:18 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Excerpts from "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'s message of Tue Nov 22 00:28:32 +0100
> 2011:
>> On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on imp
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:57:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote
Comments inline.
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:36:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 08:51 AM, Aleksand
On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
>>> inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
>> It is indeed inten
On 11/22/2011 08:51 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> Can I be added to the list of maintainers that need help very badly from the
> beginning?
If such an list existed I dont see why that should be a problem.
> I maintain a number of packages that are very low in the Java stack and would
> force
Excerpts from "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'s message of Tue Nov 22 00:28:32 +0100
2011:
> On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >> I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
> >> inactive maintainers and unm
On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
>> inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
>
> It is indeed intended as such.
I would recommend you stop this thr
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:33 +0100, MT (Miloslav) wrote:
> > Nothing is in place to detect inactive maintainers automatically.
>
> We don't really need absolute automation - if a package is not
> actively maintained but nobody notices, does it really matter?[1]
Yes. Users notice, but they report
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:09:36 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced
> >> from
> >> release to relase
esponsive,
Alexander Kurtakov
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Fenzi"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:36:39 AM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:03:43 -0800
Jesse Keating wrote:
>
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> Instead of everybody that are doing needed work in the distribution
> having to run around after maintainers trying to find out if they are
> still active or not and initiate the unresponsive maintainer policy,
> cant we revert the process and have maintainer(s) havin
On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
>> inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
>
> It is indeed intended as such.
>
BTW does anyone have any insight o
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
> inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended as such.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/l
On 11/21/2011 11:00 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> [1] It does matter because there is a risk of security vulnerabilities
> being unaddressed - but, hopefully, at least for the frequently used
> packages somebody would notice.
This in itself should be valid enough point to have proper clean up
proce
On 11/21/2011 10:36 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:03:43 -0800
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
>> can seem to agree on what an appropriate "sign of life" would be, no
>> has made a serious FESCo proposal for a contri
Am 21.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced from
>> release to relase while th eonly response is from bugzapper about EOL of the
>> release
>
> Well
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Nothing is in place to detect inactive maintainers automatically.
We don't really need absolute automation - if a package is not
actively maintained but nobody notices, does it really matter?[1]
The case that has motivated this particul
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
> +1
>
> nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced from
> release to relase while th eonly response is from bugzapper about EOL of the
> release
Well, that's not the same problem as this thread is about.
There
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
> can seem to agree on what an appropriate "sign of life" would be, no
> has made a serious FESCo proposal for a contrived sign of life.
I remember that there has
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 22:22:56 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
>
> Well comes logically to me that at least the maintainer would be
> stripped of those packages he is ignoring.
That doesn't help. It is reasonable to orphan a package that isn't being
adequately maintained, but remo
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:03:43 -0800
Jesse Keating wrote:
> This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
> can seem to agree on what an appropriate "sign of life" would be, no
> has made a serious FESCo proposal for a contrived sign of life.
>
> I don't think anybody disagr
On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
>> So if you are serious about wanting this fixed, draft a proposal, figure out
>> who's going to do the coding work, and bring it to FESCo.
>
> I would think this work directly falls under releng jurisdiction ( given
> that releng is
On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> So who's ultimately responsible for making sure that packagers are
> following the current guidelines set by FPC releng?
"the community". You see, the problem with a volunteer community is that
"enforcement" basically boils down to
On 11/21/2011 10:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "JBG" == Jóhann B Guðmundsson writes:
> JBG> How does FPC handle packagers that violate the packaging
> JBG> guidelines?
>
> FPC is not tasked with enforcing the packaging guidelines.
So who's ultimately responsible for making sure that
> "JBG" == Jóhann B Guðmundsson writes:
JBG> How does FPC handle packagers that violate the packaging
JBG> guidelines?
FPC is not tasked with enforcing the packaging guidelines.
- J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 11/21/2011 09:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> +1
>
> nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced from
> release to relase while th eonly response is from bugzapper about EOL of the
> release
That's one symptom of the underlying problem and with my QA hat on I can
tel
On 11/21/2011 10:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody can seem
> to agree on what an appropriate "sign of life" would be, no has made a
> serious FESCo proposal for a contrived sign of life.
>
> I don't think anybody disagrees (well ma
On Nov 21, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 09:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Unconvincing. To "reassure ownership" periodicially won't be sufficient.
>> It would be just another button to click (like FAS password or cert
>> renewal) and would not guarantee that the
Am 21.11.2011 22:53, schrieb "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
> On 11/21/2011 09:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Unconvincing. To "reassure ownership" periodicially won't be sufficient.
>> It would be just another button to click (like FAS password or cert
>> renewal) and would not guarantee that the p
On 11/21/2011 09:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Unconvincing. To "reassure ownership" periodicially won't be sufficient.
> It would be just another button to click (like FAS password or cert
> renewal) and would not guarantee that the packages would be maintained
> properly and that tickets would
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:56:02 +, JBG (Jóhann) wrote:
> Instead of everybody that are doing needed work in the distribution
> having to run around after maintainers trying to find out if they are
> still active or not and initiate the unresponsive maintainer policy,
> cant we revert the proce
Given that I'm migrating bunch of legacy init script to native systemd
ones and I have come many packages that seem that maintainer(s) have
deserted them but for some bizarre reason we still continue to package
and keep rolling them between release and now I came across bug 738442
which serious
87 matches
Mail list logo
