On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 09:23:10PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 20:58, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > No, it isn't. It's great ;)
>
> Why? I doubt fighting maintainers is a good thing for Fedora.
Why are you assuming the added EPEL maintainers want to fight
the existing maintai
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 20:09 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made
> > contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
>
> Newly added EPEL main
If you're happy with the current version 1.0.49 from rawhide being
branched for epel9, then the stalled process would be a good fit.
With collaborator permissions on epel* branches, you can request the
epel9 branch, merge commits from rawhide to epel9, create builds, and
create bodhi updates.
If y
Jumping in on this... I opened BZ 2095512 a few weeks ago about getting
pure-ftpd for EPEL 9, with a follow-up a week ago. There's already an
EPEL 8 branch, so I guess that maintainer was notified (or do all get
notified)?
Looking at src.fedoraproject.org, it doesn't look like any of the
maintain
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:30 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2022 21:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > Maintainers are custodians and do not own the package.
>
> This becomes true with the new EPEL policy. I think it should be
> revisited to follow Fedora's non-responsive maintainer p
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:09 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
>
> Newly added EPEL maintaine
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:09 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
>
> Newly added EPEL maintaine
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:24:07 PM CDT Maxwell G via devel wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:09:07 PM CDT Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > Newly added EPEL maintainers can make any changes to Fedora branches. I
> > don't like that.
>
> I'm a bit confused. You say this sounds like a "pa
On 29/06/2022 21:23, zebo...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean it is not possible? Isn't the new "collaborator" role
exactly for this?
Yes, didn't know about it. My bad. Thanks for the info.
Collaborator: A user or a group with this level of access can do everything
what a user/group with ti
On 29/06/2022 21:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Maintainers are custodians and do not own the package.
This becomes true with the new EPEL policy. I think it should be
revisited to follow Fedora's non-responsive maintainer procedure with an
explicit FESCo approval on a case-by-case basis.
--
Si
On 6/29/22 8:45 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
On 29/06/2022 20:24, Maxwell G wrote:
> I'm a bit confused. You say this sounds like a "package hijack attempt," but
> then you also say you don't like that it only allows access to epel* branches.
It is not possible to restrict access to onl
On 29/06/2022 20:58, Miro Hrončok wrote:
No, it isn't. It's great ;)
Why? I doubt fighting maintainers is a good thing for Fedora.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsub
Hi Robbie,
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 12:02 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> In this case, because no one needinfo'd the maintainer, the EPEL
> policy
> can be slower (two weeks compared to the minimum ten days for
> nonresponsive). Also, a literal reading of the EPEL policy says that
> the same person
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 14:52, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 20:32, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > Yes, they can. So can a lot of other people and things in Fedora.
>
> Only proven-packagers in limited situations or people who have been
> granted acces
On 29. 06. 22 20:50, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 29/06/2022 20:32, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Yes, they can. So can a lot of other people and things in Fedora.
Only proven-packagers in limited situations or people who have been granted
access by the package owner.
This isn't other distro
On 29/06/2022 20:32, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Yes, they can. So can a lot of other people and things in Fedora.
Only proven-packagers in limited situations or people who have been
granted access by the package owner.
This isn't other distros where a package maintainer is a defacto dictator of
On 29/06/2022 20:24, Maxwell G wrote:
I'm a bit confused. You say this sounds like a "package hijack attempt," but
then you also say you don't like that it only allows access to epel* branches.
It is not possible to restrict access to only selected branches. EPEL
maintainers can commit to Fedo
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 14:10, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
>
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:09:07 PM CDT Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
>
> Newly added EPEL
On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
EPEL bugs.
Newly added EPEL maintainers can make any changes to Fedora branches. I
don't like that.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel writes:
> On 29/06/2022 01:18, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
>
>> You might also be interested in the Stalled EPEL Requests
>> policy[1]. This would've allowed you to get permissions to branch the
>> package for EPEL without going through the non-responsive maintainer
>> pro
On 29/06/2022 01:18, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
You might also be interested in the Stalled EPEL Requests policy[1]. This
would've allowed you to get permissions to branch the package for EPEL without
going through the non-responsive maintainer process.
This policy looks like a package hijack a
Maxwell G via devel writes:
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:30:14 PM CDT Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> I have started the responsive maintainer process due to lack of contact
>> through bugzilla mail. Specifically, this is about an epel9 branch,
>> which has been repeatedly requested since March (inclu
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:30:14 PM CDT Robbie Harwood wrote:
> I have started the responsive maintainer process due to lack of contact
> through bugzilla mail. Specifically, this is about an epel9 branch,
> which has been repeatedly requested since March (including an offer to
> maintain the bra
Alex Chernyakhovsky writes:
> I just replied on bugzilla. No one has attempted to contact me before.
Well... as a Fedora maintainer, there's an expectation that you'll read
your bugzilla email from time to time :) I know stuff happens, and from
your bz comment it sounds like there was some issu
Hi Alex + Fedora,
I'm trying to contact Alex Chernyakhovsky, the maintainer of mosh. Does
anyone know how to contact them?
I have started the responsive maintainer process due to lack of contact
through bugzilla mail. Specifically, this is about an epel9 branch,
which has been repeatedly reques
26 matches
Mail list logo
