On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 00:23 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> That's all well and good for this specific instance but I am talking > >> more about a general policy. How are you going to handle instances where > >> maintainers refuse to cooperate? Step in and workaround them or consider > >> the packages orphaned and pull them off? > > > > I have no energy to discuss some theoretical policy for a situation that > > should hopefully not occur more than a few times. I'm not saying you're > > wrong to address that, however. If you would like to have a discussion > > on that, please start a new thread. It's not a discussion or policy > > that will be finalized before F7 releases. > > I guess that depends on things like whether Ralf wants to follow the > freeze process or not. No, it doesn't. Making a general policy to solve the current situation will not be accomplished through the proper channels before Thursday, which is when Deep Freeze occurs. Creating such a general policy _cannot_ be rushed. It needs to be drafted, posted to -maintainers, solicited for feedback, revised, and sent to FESCo. For this current situation, Ralf has already stated that he feels it is rel-eng's responsibility to fix the upgrade paths for his packages. At best, Ralf will submit a request himself. In the middle, he'll be agreeable to another maintainer doing it on his behalf. At worst, someone from rel-eng can do it with a bit of proper research. I am prepared to do that as it seems to be the only way to solve this at the moment. josh -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
