On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 2:37 AM Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:17:25 -0700 > Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:21 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > EPEL Issue #101 [1] has pointed out that our current policy for > > > stalled EPEL requests is fairly in-efficient and can cause some long > > > delays. > > > > > > What do people think the process should be? > > > > > > Here is an example: > > > * A packager opens a bugzilla requesting a package be added to EPEL. > > > They also express that they are willing to help maintain / > > > co-maintain that package in EPEL. > > > * A period of time goes by with no response > > > * They re-say that they are willing to maintain / co-maintain the > > > package in EPEL > > > * Another period of time goes by with no response > > > * They file a rel-eng ticket, that points to the bugzilla, > > > requesting appropriate privileges to be able to branch and build > > > that package in EPELX > > > * That happens. > > > * They then request branch, and build the package in EPELX following > > > normal ways. > > > > > > This is just an example, but it's what I picture in my head. > > > Troy > > > > > > [1] - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/101 > > > > This is the proposed policy. If people could look through it for any > > problems, it would be appreciated. > > > > **Stalled EPEL Requests** > > There are times that an EPEL / Fedora package maintainer isn't > > responding to an EPEL package request. If a different packager would > > like to build and maintain that package in EPEL, these are the steps > > they take. > > > > * A packager opens a bugzilla requesting a package be added to EPEL. > > They also express that they are willing to help maintain / co-maintain > > that package in EPEL-X. > > > > * A week goes by with no response > > > > * They re-say that they are willing to maintain / co-maintain the > > package in EPEL > > ** This is just incase the initial message was missed. > > > > * A week goes by with no response > > > > * They file a rel-eng ticket, that points to the bugzilla, requesting > > appropriate privileges to be able to branch and build that package in > > EPEL-X > > ** Currently that privilege is "admin" > > ** This part of the policy will adjust as various features get > > implemented in pagure and dist-git > > > > * The privileges are given > > * They then request a branch, and build the package in EPEL-X > > following normal steps. > > I think there's also a good case for the requester to be made the > bugzilla contact for EPEL for that package, though it would be > complicated if there was an existing EPEL branch, which would > presumably have been made (and been maintained) by someone else. > > Paul. That's a very good point. I think that would be done during the "The privileges are given.". I think (hope) that can be done on a per-branch basis. So it would be something like * The privileges are given and the packager is made the bugzilla contact for EPEL-X Troy _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
