On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 07:55:18PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:48:41 +0100 > Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:23:05PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > > We don't need a general rule. We need you to bring up these specific > > > examples when they happen and FESCo can deal with those at that time. > > > That's what the general rule would boil down to anyway. > > > > I have something like 9 of such bugs, I don't think that it scales well > > to ask FESCO. And what to ask to FESCO? Hello, I have all those bugs not > > addressed, please do something? Maybe ther may be a better solution? > > 9 bugs for 9 separate maintainers? Or one maintainer with 9 bugs? Or? Almost all different maintainers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=203620 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=383561 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=380611 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=373861 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=350651 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=380621 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=203542 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=203642 This one could also simply be denied https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=350641 This one may be controversial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398521 Many issues raised in merge reviews and not taken into account by maintainers also fall in that category. > Seriously, what would you consider reasonable to do in situations like > you described (but still haven't given specifics to)? I don't know exactly. But what I see is a failure in the organization of fedora. > If you have an actual proposal, we can certainly review it. I don't have a proposal, I thought about it (including what I should do for these bugs), but I haven't found a solution. So I was hoping that people in FESCo (and everyone reading the list) could try to think about a way to handle those situations. > Personally, I find situations like that to differ in the details > enough that I'm not sure there is a sufficient general solution. It > seems to me asking FESCo to review those on a case-by-case basis would > cover most things. It won't scale to hundreds of bugs or dozens of > maintainers, but if that starts being the case we've failed elsewhere. I don't think that it scales even for 9 bugs. This situation reveals a failure in the organization of fedora, and in my opinion it would be nice to have a way out of it. To be clear, the organizational failure is that some bugs with patches or trivial to fix, with a submitter ready to do the work should not stay open for more than something like about 7 days (unless maintainer is in vacations, and it is something like a mean, there could be exceptions). -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
