On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 14:03 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote: >> * Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> [2008-05-09 13:53]: >> > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > What would you guys think about having a subset of Java packages be >> > > owned by a Java group? >> >> Tom Fitzsimmons was going to start a Java SIG. Perhaps this can tie in >> with that? > > Yeah, that makes sense. > >> > > [...] >> > >> > I think that would help with coverage of issues. The main problem is >> > making sure that someone is taking ownership of a problem in the group >> > so that something does not just get 'oh I thought Colin was working on >> > it?' >> >> Yeah, that's my only issue as well. And it annoys me when I file a bug >> and see it go to xdg-maint@xxxxxxxxxx or something since there's no >> guarantee anyone's watching that alias. > > That is a valid concern - however, since Fedora is in general a > community project, there's no guarantee that a bug will get a response > even if it's assigned to an actual person. > s/in general a community// I have had more than my share of RH bugs that sat in UNASSIGNED for a long time :).. and I worked there at the time. :) > As for knowing that someone's working on a bug - Bugzilla provides a > mechanism for someone to take ownership of a bug (change state to > ASSIGNED, reassign to your email address). > > I think in practice, having more people see issues and work on them > collectively will work out better than individual fiefdoms. > That is true... as long as the workflow is clear. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" -- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
