On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:48:58 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The EOL process is extremely delicate process and if not the nr.1 > cause we continuously have lost new contributors in the past and > continue to lose new contributors. I agree it's a important process. > Matt could have contacted the QA community directly instead of going > behinds it's back as well as FESCo could have chosen to redirected > him there instead of proceeding with the ticket and spend their time > focusing on something that falls within their realm to fix or decide > upon. Bugzilla and end of life is surely something FESCo could decide on. Bugs don't only affect QA, they effect maintainers, contributors, etc. This process was setup back when bugzappers was stiill active. At the time the Program Manager was involved in bugzappers, so he ran the updates. When bugzappers went inactive this continued to be something that the program manager ran and managed. So, instead of complaining about a process here, is there some actual suggestion, input or proposal in reference to problem you would like to provide? The ticket is open, FESCo meetings are open, this list is open, go right ahead. For those that don't want to dig into it, the summary is: Some closed end of life bugs don't seem to be re-openable by the reporter. Bugzilla admins say this should work, but there's been some in person reports where it doesn't. Our end of life message tells reporters to re-open and set to the current Fedora release they were still seeing the bug on to bring it back up, but if that doesn't work in some cases we need to get bugzilla admins to fix that or we need adjust the wording on the end of life closed message. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
