Please see https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2149#comment-579981 for the full text
of the latest proposal.
The biggest change is that the reporter would have less work to do
(fesco would take care of sending reminders from its ticket), and the
reported would normally be assigned comaintainership right
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:27:00 +0100
James Findley wrote:
>
> Really? So imagine this scenario.
>
> Packager foo has two packages, bar and baz.
> bar is a package much like ed, which needs very little attention, and
> goes for a year without anything needing doing to it, no koji
> activity happ
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:27:00 +0100, James wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 01:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:31:22 +0100, James wrote:
> >
> >> Remember that some packages get very little activity because they need
> >> very little.
> >
> > And these are not a problem at all.
> >
On 08/02/2010 01:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:31:22 +0100, James wrote:
>
>> Remember that some packages get very little activity because they need
>> very little.
>
> And these are not a problem at all.
>
>> Increasing someone's AWOLness counter because they didn't for e
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:31:22 +0100, James wrote:
> Remember that some packages get very little activity because they need
> very little.
And these are not a problem at all.
> Increasing someone's AWOLness counter because they didn't for example,
> update ed is just plain silly.
[snipped the r
2010/8/2 James Findley :
> On 07/30/2010 10:31 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:28:11 +0200
> Remember that some packages get very little activity because they need
> very little.
> Increasing someone's AWOLness counter because they didn't for example,
> update ed is just plain sill
On 07/30/2010 10:31 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:28:11 +0200
> Sven Lankes wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:28:42PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>
I think we should add some policy to address those unmaintained
packages,
>>
>>> There is the non-responsive main
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:28:11 +0200
Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:28:42PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> >> I think we should add some policy to address those unmaintained
> >> packages,
>
> > There is the non-responsive maintainer policy already.
>
> That policy isn't th
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:28:42PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> I think we should add some policy to address those unmaintained
>> packages,
> There is the non-responsive maintainer policy already.
That policy isn't the easiest one to follow though. I understand that
taking someones packag
