Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vít Ondruch"<vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthias Runge"<mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Development discussions related to
Fedora"<devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I'm afraid we end up with more bureaucracy than we have now. I'm
not
against tracking some statistics, so you can look up who is
active
and
probably will answer in few days, but I'd rather not use it for
the
unresponsive process.
Marcela
I'm thinking about how to support Jóhann with a proven packager
(or
two). Since it seems not wanted by Fesco, to give him the
corresponding
rights to commit his changes directly? This final target (all
services
are supported by systemd) seems to be clear to everyone.
This is a noble goal and I wish this finishes sooner. But attacking
packagers by threatening is not gaining any support for the
efforts.
Most of us gained their commit rights by talking to the respective
maintainers getting them approve us as comaintainers, it's a
lengthy process I agree. But it's not that hard to ask for
co-maintainership so one gets commit rights. I wonder whether
someone refused to give commit rights for someone wanting to add
systemd support in his package?
People should finally understand that by threatening and
over-bureaucracy nothing will improve. When someone wants to see a
feature done he should get his hands dirty in all aspects - do the
changes, find the maintainer, talk to them, get commit rights or
get them to push changes, do builds if needed. We ship a
distribution so if someone do something but doesn't integrate with
the rest we have nothing. And integration is collaboration it's
not something one can enforce with bureacracy.
Alex,
Don't be so touchy please. The truth is somewhere in between. There
are
maintainers who do not respond for whatever reason and there are
others
who are solving reported issue in a minute. I don't believe that it
was
meant to threaten anybody. You read the "Automating the
NonResponsiveMaintainers policy" as "remove the original maintainer"
or
"punish him" but it might be very well read in opposite way, exactly
as
you proposed. There is no need for drama.
This is not the first discussion on the topic I'm involved into. There are such maintainers I agree. But what is the problem with the current NonResponsiveMaintainers policy? How would you automate this? And asking to do it in a week?
Every packager deserves at least the few steps described into the current procedure.
The current procedure is a pain ... and it happens that after month of
waiting, maintainer suddenly appear and (s)he is really angry "how dare
you can call me unresponsive when I am just busy with other
projects/live". This is not good from opposite side. And that happened
to me. So current procedure is at least pretty vague and there is no
support in kind of some infrastructure. You have to check "hmm, is it
already week since I last pinged somebody on BZ or ML? Hm, not yet. Ok,
I'll wait".
Vit
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
