On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:01:18 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: > Errr... > > I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him > quickly as well.
Well, people are different, and it may not always happen "quickly", if the package suffers from issues and/or the Fedora specific stuff (buildsys, updates, ...) is considered a hindrance. Being "upstream" does not imply real interest in maintaining the Fedora package. If an upstream dev uses Fedora, it may be different. > Also applied to "comaintainer as upstream". My experience here is that if a package included in the collection is considered _maintained_, so nobody else wants to sign up as co-maintainer. And if there's one thing for sure, upstream devs only care about Fedora bugzilla, if they are explicitly pointed at specific tickets with backtraces. They don't want the overhead of observing how the Fedora package is maintained. Even if a package turns out to be unmaintained (aka "semi-orphaned"), it is more likely picked up by an existing packager than a community member, who takes that as an opportunity to join as a packager. Eventually, more people in the community will realise that co-maintaining can be fun. > See an example of mindi-busybox, packager from HP still can't get > sponsored after 5 years. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476234 It has had "fedora-review" flag set to '?', which means somebody is working on it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
