On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 03:55:40PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:52 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > So, some things I wonder about this process (in no particular order):
> >
> > If this lightweight process is easier, will not people just use it over
> > the normal proces
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:52 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> So, some things I wonder about this process (in no particular order):
>
> If this lightweight process is easier, will not people just use it over
> the normal process? So, it will be harder to see who is completely
> unresponsive. There will
So, some things I wonder about this process (in no particular order):
If this lightweight process is easier, will not people just use it over
the normal process? So, it will be harder to see who is completely
unresponsive. There will be some of their packages with no one doing
anything, and some w
On Tue, 2025-04-15 at 08:08 +0200, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025, at 11:56 PM, Michel Lind wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Over the past months FESCo has been considering my proposal to have
> > a
> > lighter weight process to get needed changes for Fedora packages
> > (whether getti
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 18:51 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15 2025 at 01:19:10 AM +02:00:00, Fabio Valentini
> wrote:
> > The non-responsive maintainer process requires that the maintainer
> > is
> > *entirely unresponsive*,
> > which is a much higher bar than for this proposed, le
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025, at 11:56 PM, Michel Lind wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Over the past months FESCo has been considering my proposal to have a
> lighter weight process to get needed changes for Fedora packages
> (whether getting a PR merged and built, or a package branched, etc.) -
> since the alterna
I think the practical effect of the lightweight process will be: new
contributor likely becomes the de facto maintainer of the package,
while bug reports continue to be assigned to the non-responsive main
admin.
Maybe it's better to just rip the band-aid off and acknowledge that
when a main
On Tue, Apr 15 2025 at 01:19:10 AM +02:00:00, Fabio Valentini
wrote:
The non-responsive maintainer process requires that the maintainer is
*entirely unresponsive*,
which is a much higher bar than for this proposed, less-consequential
process.
If the maintainer is not unresponsive, why can't y
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 12:31 AM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
>
>
> I think the practical effect of the lightweight process will be: new
> contributor likely becomes the de facto maintainer of the package,
> while bug reports continue to be assigned to the non-responsive main
> admin.
>
> Maybe it's b
-docs/pull-request/94
This is also cross-posted to Discourse:
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/rfc-lightweight-stalled-request-process/148733
Best regards,
--
_o) Michel Lind
_( ) identities:
https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2
README: https
10 matches
Mail list logo
