Re: concept of package "ownership"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:43:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  On 07/02/2010 07:37 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > Ok, this policy was for the other case, a case when the maintainer
> > does not respond. I am not saying that it happens a lot, but it
> > happened in the past, and the syslog-ng case exposed in the thread is
> > another recent case. Maybe a policy is not needed and a case by 
> > case handling by escalation to FESCo is enough, though. In my
> > days as a Fedora contributor, however, this issue was annoying
> > enough that I proposed the policy, maybe things have changed
> > now.
> 
> A global view of package versions in rawhide vs the latest upstream
> similar to http://wiki.debian.org/DEHS would be useful to know how we
> stand.  Rakesh Pandit was looking into this earlier.  Not sure of the
> status on that now. 

Most of the packages listed here are not up to date:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=exact&query_format=advanced&bug_status=ASSIGNED&email1=upstream-release-monitoring%40fedoraproject.org&product=Fedora

Regards
Till

Attachment: pgpePczufCFFB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux