> "PO" == Peter Oliver writes:
PO> Also, it's hard to volunteer to co-maintain a package which has a
PO> non-responsive maintainer, because there is no one to grant you
PO> access.
Well, certainly there is but the issue is finding the proper way to ask
for it. And I don't think we have any
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, 17:21 Jonathan Wakely
> This assumes there is a queue of ready and willing (and competent)
> volunteers to take on packages that get automatically orphaned. Is
> that true? I doubt it. If those people exist, why aren't they already
> offering to co-maintain packages, or respon
On 18/11/18 09:44 +, Mattia Verga wrote:
Il 11/17/18 10:59 PM, Philip Kovacs ha scritto:
You want to attract packagers, not irritate them.
In my opinion, "irritating" is when a maintainer doesn't reply to bugs that
users fill in Bugzilla. If they can't found enough time to reply or cha
> Being a volunteer doesn't mean to not have any responsibility.
It's grossly unfair to insinuate that being a volunteer is associated with
laziness or a lack of responsibility.
There are a myriad of things that we as packagers do that are completely silent
to the surrounding automation and for
On 11/18/18 1:44 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
> Il 11/17/18 10:59 PM, Philip Kovacs ha scritto:
>
>> You want to attract packagers, not irritate them.
>
> In my opinion, "irritating" is when a maintainer doesn't reply to bugs that
> users fill in Bugzilla. If they can't found enough time to reply o
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:47 AM Mattia Verga
wrote:
>
>
> - after three emails without response, orphan their packages and inform
> devel list
>
I'm not sure I'm in favor of automatically orphaning packages. I think it
could "tell" of them to the devel list that way anyone who knows them can
tr
Il 11/17/18 10:59 PM, Philip Kovacs ha scritto:
> You want to attract packagers, not irritate them.
In my opinion, "irritating" is when a maintainer doesn't reply to bugs that
users fill in Bugzilla. If they can't found enough time to reply or change
state of any bug in a six months period, t
There already is a fedora_active_user script of sorts
https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-active-user.
I would not be in favor of any respond or die automation. We volunteer our
time and effort to be packagersand the job is often thankless enough as it is.
Having some additional automation or
> Maybe a tool that checks a packager activity in the last 6 months and if
> What do you think?
Better make it a year as people are entitled to a break!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...
Il 11/17/18 4:50 PM, Ron Olson ha scritto:
> What about packages that see infrequent updates; I maintain Nethack
> and the Dev Team can and does take years between releases. If it's
> just a blanket email to ask the packagers if they're still interested
> that's one thing, but going off package
What about packages that see infrequent updates; I maintain Nethack and the Dev
Team can and does take years between releases. If it's just a blanket email to
ask the packagers if they're still interested that's one thing, but going off
package updates may be problematic for some folks.
> On N
Yes, this could be a good idea. Might be too small as a gsoc project
though.
I'd happily take this as i am anyways going to try for gsoc 19 with
fedora,this could be a good starting point.
A simple dockerized/contenerized python based app could be done as a very
simple implementation.
On Nov 1
On 11/17/18 11:14 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
> I would propose some sort of automatic check of maintainer responsivity.
> Maybe a tool that checks a packager activity in the last 6 months and if
> there is no activity then sends an email asking the maintainer to
> confirm they're still involved in
13 matches
Mail list logo
