On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 13:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 12:46 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Friday 07 July 2006 17:48, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Summary: RPM 4.4.6 is available > > > > > > Ugh. We really need to revoke his bugzilla rights and tell him that if he > > wants a bug tracking system for his upstream rpm to get one on is own. Red > > Hat's bugzilla should be for the rpm we include in our products, not > > upstream. I'm tired of him messing with and closing Fedora / RHEL rpm > > related bugs with snide upstream comments, that to the casual reader could be > > considered coming from a Red Hat source. Enough is enough. > > > Has any thought been put into this? rpm is a critical piece of the > distribution. As bad as it is when a bugzilla report against rpm > appears to be ignored, these types of comments and bug closings by > someone other than the Fedora/Red Hat maintainer are even worse. I agree. We don't give powers over bug reports to any other upstream maintainer (if in fact that's what he constitutes). If the upstream maintainer is also a fedora contributor that's something else, though. -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
