Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On 07/07/10 20:16, Thomas Spura wrote: To get such a button, to apply for becoming real maintainership makes this possible and is the easiest way, because it doesn't need e.g. a fast track procedure or anyone agreeing from fesco or anyone to change it manually in pkgdb. When you have another solution for this, let me hear. :) I have an idea that people who spent the hard yards to create a package/improve it enough to get into fedora are proud of their accomplishment - for non-prolific packagers, like my self, having yourself listed as maintainer can be a bit of status symbol. Having to officially say I don't want that any more would not be easy. It would be good if the package db grew a history of (co)maintainers: Package developed: 2007-06-01 fschepsi Retired maintainers: 2009-12-06 - 2010-04-13 bcandoit 2008-07-01 - 2009-09-13 jbloggers Anymay, just wanting to put a view from a basic (10 packages) maintainer. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:53:29 +0200, Kevin wrote: Kevin Fenzi wrote: If some provenpackager want's to maintain it, why don't they take ownership? Because I can fix the occasional broken dependency, [...] ... which hopefully will not be a problem anymore with a revised push process. You could not limit your activity to Rawhide, and you would not learn about broken deps and required rebuilds for released dists, if you're not willing to become one of the package's maintainers. [...] but I can't commit to actually maintain hundreds of packages. For example, the bugmail would flood me, I couldn't fix any of those bugs anyway, only the complete showstoppers (i.e. broken deps and MAYBE (!) FTBFS). So, you won't forward problem reports to upstream either (as by now everyone knows anyway that you'd like crash reports to flood upstream directly instead of Fedora's tracker), you won't keep an eye on upstream development (e.g. commit diffs and release monitoring), and you won't learn if your recent rebuild or upgrade causes segfaults. In other words, you request to become a package-monkey with no responsibilities, who may play with a pile of packages, which is free for everyone to either mess with or leave it aside. This might work with some software, which is rather maintenance-free and has upstream developers who make quality releases, but packages for such software often are easy to maintain and are low-hanging fruit even for RPM packging beginners. If the software is used at all by anyone within the Fedora community, it should not be a big problem to find _at least_ one packager for it. And if there are more than one, increase the freedom and encourage even additional people to become one of the package's maintainers. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
Am Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:46:44 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at: Thomas Spura wrote: For me it doesn't make much sense to be co-maintainer everywhere, but actually: 1. doing all the tasks alone. I don't see the big problem. I'm comaintaining a few packages in that way for a while (xchat and mingw32-nsis come to my mind) and that just works (though I do sometimes get angry about maintainers being registered there and rarely doing anything). It's simply annoying to fix *all* bugs of a particular package and always need to click e.g. on 'Take it' on the assign list. But that's not the best reason for this change... How to you see, that a maintainer is unresponsive? The bugs are getting fixed, all releases are getting updates, the program works, so there is nothing to complain about on the first sign. e.g. I *know* the package owner, I'm complaining about, doesn't even read the bugzilla mails, but he is also not 'unresponsive' with the criterias of the unresponsive maintainership rule, because he answers private mails... - I believe, he should give his packages completely away, and become co-maintainer of his former packages. This way he can still help out, when he finds time, or simply continue ignoring bugzilla mails without being bothered. To get such a button, to apply for becoming real maintainership makes this possible and is the easiest way, because it doesn't need e.g. a fast track procedure or anyone agreeing from fesco or anyone to change it manually in pkgdb. When you have another solution for this, let me hear. :) Thomas -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote: Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough timeframe (say 8 weeks). That way packages with AWOL maintainers could grow co-maintainers without going through the complicated AWOL-process. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- Sounds reasonable enough to me. Regards -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions - Photo Printing, Editing and Restorations Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au or ubuntu...@comcen.com.au Fedora Design Suite Developer and Co-Maintainer Email: foxmulder...@fedoraproject.org -- GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Public Key Fingerprint: 6915 0761 5754 D091 99F4 5384 BA37 FD5D 34F9 F115 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote: Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough timeframe (say 8 weeks). That way packages with AWOL maintainers could grow co-maintainers without going through the complicated AWOL-process. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- Sounds reasonable enough to me. Regards Big +1 from me too for such change. Alexander Kurtakov -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions - Photo Printing, Editing and Restorations Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au or ubuntu...@comcen.com.au Fedora Design Suite Developer and Co-Maintainer Email: foxmulder...@fedoraproject.org -- GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Public Key Fingerprint: 6915 0761 5754 D091 99F4 5384 BA37 FD5D 34F9 F115 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:32:06AM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote: On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:21:29AM +1000, Chris Jones wrote: This seems to be happening a lot lately regarding maintainers and/or co-maintainers losing interest in their projects somewhere along the line and just stopping development without any warning and notification to other members who may be interested. Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough timeframe (say 8 weeks). +1, good idea. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
Am Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:57:06 +0100 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com: On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:32:06AM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote: On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:21:29AM +1000, Chris Jones wrote: This seems to be happening a lot lately regarding maintainers and/or co-maintainers losing interest in their projects somewhere along the line and just stopping development without any warning and notification to other members who may be interested. Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough timeframe (say 8 weeks). +1, good idea. If this is implemented, the 'next' co-maintainer should become the real maintainer after another 8 weeks non-commiting by the former maintainer. For me it doesn't make much sense to be co-maintainer everywhere, but actually: 1. doing all the tasks alone. 2. when there is a problem with the package, other contact at first the maintainer, which should be the new one, too. Maybe a button with 'take the package, when maintainer doesn't want to keep it' and transfer, when the maintainer agrees or doesn't respond in the 8 weeks or so? Thomas -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:26:21PM +0200, Thomas Spura wrote: If this is implemented, the 'next' co-maintainer should become the real maintainer after another 8 weeks non-commiting by the former maintainer. I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all co-maintainers be equal? As people know, my default position is for inclusion: we should try to include as many packages in Fedora that we can, except where there is a legal or insuperable technical problem with that. So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more maintainers. If #maintainers == 0 then the package is either just sitting there (as long as there are no serious bugs), or is being best-effort maintained by provenpackagers, at least until that becomes a burden and only then should the package be dropped. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/libguestfs/ See what it can do: http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/libguestfs/recipes.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all co-maintainers be equal? Because this ensures that there is a well defined person who is responsible for the package, and has the last word (with the usual procedure when people disagree with the maintainer). It doesn't prevent from having, in practice, equal maintainers when it comes to maintaining the package. This was the case for some packages I co-maintained, for example netcdf related packages, where all the co-maintainers were more or less equal in practice. -- Pat -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100, Richard wrote: So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more maintainers. Why 0? Who will be notified about bugzilla tickets? Who will receive mail sent to the PACKAGE-owner Fedora e-mail alias? For each package in the collection, there ought to be at least (!) one maintainer, who wants to be responsible for taking care of the package. If #maintainers == 0 then the package is either just sitting there (as long as there are no serious bugs), or is being best-effort maintained by provenpackagers, at least until that becomes a burden and only then should the package be dropped. Sounds like the infamous dumping-ground for packages. Welcome back, contrib.redhat.com! Or what? Best-effort maintained ranging from no effort to over-ambitious upgrade hell. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100, Richard wrote: So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more maintainers. Why 0? Who will be notified about bugzilla tickets? Who will receive mail sent to the PACKAGE-owner Fedora e-mail alias? Some mailing list like dumping-gro...@fedoraproject.org. I am sure someone can come up with a better name. For each package in the collection, there ought to be at least (!) one maintainer, who wants to be responsible for taking care of the package. Yes. And everyone who is subscribed to the above mailing list is a potential maintainer of those packages with 0 principal maintainers. Great idea. If #maintainers == 0 then the package is either just sitting there (as long as there are no serious bugs), or is being best-effort maintained by provenpackagers, at least until that becomes a burden and only then should the package be dropped. Sounds like the infamous dumping-ground for packages. Welcome back, contrib.redhat.com! Or what? Best-effort maintained ranging from no effort to over-ambitious upgrade hell. +1. Exactly. Good thinking! Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:54:29AM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100, Richard wrote: So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more maintainers. Why 0? Who will be notified about bugzilla tickets? Who will receive mail sent to the PACKAGE-owner Fedora e-mail alias? Some mailing list like dumping-gro...@fedoraproject.org. I am sure someone can come up with a better name. We can use uberpackagers ;-) or maybe package-monkeys, make it a SIG and then it is afaik already covered by Fedora procedures, because a SIG or group of packagers can own a package, like e.g. the lvm-team. Orcan, Richard, who else is in? Regards Till pgp7BIxx7K7hK.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:31:32PM +0300, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote: Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough timeframe (say 8 weeks). That way packages with AWOL maintainers could grow co-maintainers without going through the complicated AWOL-process. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- Sounds reasonable enough to me. Regards Big +1 from me too for such change. If anyone wants to help code this, I think the way to do it is to implement an events queue in pkgdb. With the queue we can do two things -- first, have the pkgdb send nagmail when an acl request has not been answered. second have the pkgdb batch status messages when many requests are done at the same time. -Toshio pgpy8jGYp56mM.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:00:23PM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: If anyone wants to help code this, I think the way to do it is to implement an events queue in pkgdb. With the queue we can do two things -- first, have the pkgdb send nagmail when an acl request has not been answered. second have the pkgdb batch status messages when many requests are done at the same time. I guess for the nagmail a separate cron job that queries the db for old requests and send sends the mail might be enough and probably be straight forward to implement as long as there is a timestamp saved when a ACL request is made. Regards Till pgpFpOU8CES4w.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:26:21PM +0200, Thomas Spura wrote: If this is implemented, the 'next' co-maintainer should become the real maintainer after another 8 weeks non-commiting by the former maintainer. I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all co-maintainers be equal? If co-maintainers have all the same checkboxes as 'owner' then the only difference is that the 'owner' will show up in some queries as the primary contact for the package. Otherwise there's no difference. The co-maintainers can approve other people for acls, etc. As people know, my default position is for inclusion: we should try to include as many packages in Fedora that we can, except where there is a legal or insuperable technical problem with that. So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more maintainers. I disagree with the 0. If #maintainers == 0 then the package is either just sitting there (as long as there are no serious bugs), or is being best-effort maintained by provenpackagers, at least until that becomes a burden and only then should the package be dropped. If some provenpackager want's to maintain it, why don't they take ownership? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
Sven Lankes wrote: Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough timeframe (say 8 weeks). That way packages with AWOL maintainers could grow co-maintainers without going through the complicated AWOL-process. +1, good idea! And IMHO 8 weeks is too much, it should be somewhere between 2 and 4. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
Thomas Spura wrote: For me it doesn't make much sense to be co-maintainer everywhere, but actually: 1. doing all the tasks alone. I don't see the big problem. I'm comaintaining a few packages in that way for a while (xchat and mingw32-nsis come to my mind) and that just works (though I do sometimes get angry about maintainers being registered there and rarely doing anything). (BTW, it's quite funny that the main GTK+-based IRC client is maintained almost exclusively by a KDE SIG member. ;-) ) 2. when there is a problem with the package, other contact at first the maintainer, which should be the new one, too. They should contact pkgname-ow...@fedoraproject.org, which also includes comaintainers. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
Till Maas wrote: We can use uberpackagers ;-) or maybe package-monkeys, make it a SIG and then it is afaik already covered by Fedora procedures, because a SIG or group of packagers can own a package, like e.g. the lvm-team. Orcan, Richard, who else is in? As an inclusionist and someone who has often stepped in to fix broken dependencies in, uhm, very passively maintained packages, count me in! I think it's in almost all cases better to have a package than not to have it, even if it's not well maintained. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: If #maintainers == 0 then the package is either just sitting there (as long as there are no serious bugs), or is being best-effort maintained by provenpackagers, at least until that becomes a burden and only then should the package be dropped. If some provenpackager want's to maintain it, why don't they take ownership? Because I can fix the occasional broken dependency, but I can't commit to actually maintain hundreds of packages. For example, the bugmail would flood me, I couldn't fix any of those bugs anyway, only the complete showstoppers (i.e. broken deps and MAYBE (!) FTBFS). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: And IMHO 8 weeks is too much, it should be somewhere between 2 and 4. Kevin Kofler I initially thought 8 weeks was too long also, but I guess people have busy lifestyles. 4 weeks is probably more realistic. If you can't access your email and reply within 4 weeks then there's definitely something going on there. worried Regards -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions - Photo Printing, Editing and Restorations Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au or ubuntu...@comcen.com.au Fedora Design Suite Developer and Co-Maintainer Email: foxmulder...@fedoraproject.org -- GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Public Key Fingerprint: 6915 0761 5754 D091 99F4 5384 BA37 FD5D 34F9 F115 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all co-maintainers be equal? Good point. I think, just like you, that there should be a list of owners rather than just 1 owner. As people know, my default position is for inclusion: we should try to include as many packages in Fedora that we can, except where there is a legal or insuperable technical problem with that. So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more maintainers. If #maintainers == 0 then the package is either just sitting there (as long as there are no serious bugs), or is being best-effort maintained by provenpackagers, at least until that becomes a burden and only then should the package be dropped. This is really a separate issue, but FWIW, I agree with you on this point as well. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 01:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: (BTW, it's quite funny that the main GTK+-based IRC client is maintained almost exclusively by a KDE SIG member. ;-) ) Well, I use the xchat-gnome fork. I suspect quite a lot of other GNOME-y folks do...that one's maintained by Brian Pepple. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Some mailing list like dumping-gro...@fedoraproject.org. I am sure someone can come up with a better name. [snip] Yes. And everyone who is subscribed to the above mailing list is a potential maintainer of those packages with 0 principal maintainers. Well, you'd have to allow us to disable mail delivery and access the ML through Gmane though, otherwise there's no way I could keep up with the volume! I really don't want my POP3 mailbox to be flooded. :-) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:56:41 +0200, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all co-maintainers be equal? Good point. I think, just like you, that there should be a list of owners rather than just 1 owner. I think anyone who can update ACLs should be effectively considered an owner. If #maintainers == 0 then the package is either just sitting there (as long as there are no serious bugs), or is being best-effort maintained by provenpackagers, at least until that becomes a burden and only then should the package be dropped. This is really a separate issue, but FWIW, I agree with you on this point as well. It's also possible now to have a package with no owner, but co-maintainers. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:56:41AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a maintainer (owner?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all co-maintainers be equal? It was set up this way because of bugzilla originally. Bugzilla needs to have an owner. Some teams have taken to using the difference between owner and comaintainers to establish a triage workflow in bugzilla so we can't quite get rid of it. Good point. I think, just like you, that there should be a list of owners rather than just 1 owner. nod So one way we might be able to change things is to have a list of comaintainers: Package: Foobar Branch: F-13 Status: Approved Maintainers: Alfred Watchers: Arnold Baxter Barry Carrington Chris [Apply][Watch] [Add User] [Add User] With a setup like this, the first person in the list is the maintainer in bugzilla. If that person leaves, the next person in the list becomes the owner. One thing that would have to be worked out is whether fine grained acls work in this scheme or should be dropped. ie: In some places we consider comaintainers to be anyone with commit. In other places, anyone with approveacls. The above list idea simplifies the presentation of the acls... would we want to put people who have both approveacl and commit into the maitnainers list? Remove the distinction between approveacls and commit? Something else? (Also note, not yet volunteering to take this on, just figuring out a way it could be implemented. If someone else has some coding time, I'd accept something that is coded along these lines.) -Toshio pgp6BANqAU0Fr.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
