On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:05:52PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 05:38 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
> >>wouldn't it make sense to integrate a check into the processes, when people
> >>leave Redhat, that the packages in
On 09/04/2014 05:38 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
wouldn't it make sense to integrate a check into the processes, when people
leave Redhat, that the packages in fedora are properly orphaned or get a new
owner?
Why would even someone'
On 4 September 2014 06:01, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 01:35 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> And much like anyone else, people come and go. The difference is that
>> here, when
>> they leave, we know about it before emails start to bounce.
>>
> It's simply that the number of @RHs bei
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:11:58 -0500
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Tomasz Torcz said:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
> > > wouldn't it make sense to integrate a check into the processes,
> > > when people leave Redhat, that the packages in fedora are
> >
Once upon a time, Tomasz Torcz said:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
> > wouldn't it make sense to integrate a check into the processes, when people
> > leave Redhat, that the packages in fedora are properly orphaned or get a
> > new owner?
>
> Why would even so
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:56:20PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 02:26 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:01:41PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>On 09/04/2014 01:35 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >>BTW: Though this threat started with FAS, one should also
On 09/04/2014 02:26 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:01:41PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:35 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
BTW: Though this threat started with FAS, one should also consider to take
into account bugzilla accounts.
There are two aspects t
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:01:41PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 01:35 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> BTW: Though this threat started with FAS, one should also consider to take
> into account bugzilla accounts.
There are two aspects to consider here:
* bugzilla is managed by RH IT,
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:08:47AM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> > maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive
> > maintainer policy to find out if they are still interested
On Thu 04 Sep 2014 01:35:53 PM CEST Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:38:52AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> >
>> > > Greetings, we've been told that the e
- Original Message -
> Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive
> maintainer policy to find out if they are still interested in
> maintaining their packages (and if so, have them update their email
On 09/04/2014 01:35 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
And much like anyone else, people come and go. The difference is that here, when
they leave, we know about it before emails start to bounce.
It's simply that the number of @RHs being involved into Fedora is quite
large, which makes this happen m
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:38:52AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> > > maintainers are no longer vali
On 09/04/2014 11:38 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Why would even someone's employment status matter? Fedora is a community
project.
In an ideal world, yes.
Reality however tells, RH employees leaving RH and leaving the their
packages abandoned is a problem.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
deve
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 14:44 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive
> maintainer policy to find out if they are still interested in
> maintaining their packages (and if so, have
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> > maintainers are no long
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> maintainers are no longer valid.A I'm starting the unresponsive
> maintainer policy to
- Original Message -
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> > > maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> > maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive
> > maintainer policy to find out if t
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive
> maintainer policy to find out if they are still interested in
> maintaining their packages (and if so, have
- Original Message -
> Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for two package
> maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive
> maintainer policy to find out if they are still interested in
> maintaining their packages (and if so, have them update their email
21 matches
Mail list logo
