On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 02:15:23PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 09:03:45AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 09:53:17AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > Dne 18. 12. 24 v 1:38 dop. maxwell--- via devel-announce napsal(a): > > > > The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they > > > > are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure > > > > that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life > > > > > > I see lots of packages that are orphaned, but have one or more > > > co-maintainer. Sometimes they may quickly take the package, sometimes they > > > may be on holidays. > > > > > > Would you object if promote a co-maintainer to main maintainer for orphaned packages and make it a rule? > > > > Broadly it is a good idea, but with impl questions due to Pagure. > > > > IIUC Pagure only allows for 1 "main admin" (owner). What would you suggest > > if there are currently 2 (or more) "admin"s (co-maintainers). Arbitrarily > > pick 1 of the many to promote? Or do nothing and let them choose ? > > > > This is a problem I would hope our Pagure replacement will trivially fix > > for us, on the dist-git side at least. Other forges don't typically have > > a distinction between a single "main admin" and other "admins". Repos are > > "owned" by the collective of all admins who are equal peers. So there's > > no problem until the very last admin wants to leave. > > It's not actually a pagure problem, the reason we have a main admin is basically > bugzilla. You can have as many CC as you want in a bugzilla bug, but there can > only be 1 account assigned to the ticket. > This is why in pkgdb we had an "owner" which got changed to "point of contact" > in pkgdb2 and "main admin" in pagure. Oh good point. That's actually one of the main reasons many teams create a '<blah>-maint' email alias, both in Fedora and RHEL world. It gets rid of the mis-leading impression for new bugs that a specific single person out of all the co-maintainers is responsible for that bug. A real human does not get assigned until it is genuinely something they're intending to work on, so other co-maintainers have a clear view of what's pending or not. I recall Fedora in the past had unique email address aliases per-package which would fan out to all maintainers, which could have been used in BZ, avoiding the need to limit Pagure due to BZ's design. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
