Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Stephen John Smoogen [08/04/2008 23:23] :
In some cases that will mean a maintainer
loses a package if they are not responding to bugs.
Can't we just open up the ACLs for that package? It doesn't matter that
the maintainer doesn't use Bugzilla, only that someone is able to commit
the bug's fix to the package (and push out an update?).
Open acls are good.
OTOH, if a maintainer doesn't use Bugzilla, there's a definite problem.
Bugzilla is a primary form of contact between users and developers. If
a maintainer doesn't use Bugzilla, it could be argued that they aren't
paying attention to a major portion of their responsibilities to a package.
This is the thing I hate most about Ubuntu-launchpad. There's no
culture of watching the bug tracker (or it's not consistent between the
Ubuntu distro people and the upstream people hosted in launchpad) so
putting a bug in launchpad might not ever be read by the relevant parties.
In Fedora it may sometimes feel the same but at least our messaging is
sane: Every bug belongs in Bugzilla. When the process falls down
(because a maintainer is ignoring bugzilla) we need to find a way to
address that (triage team looks at bugs and flags important ones for the
maintainer; opening acls so more people can work on a package; getting
maintainers to release packages that they do not care about; etc).
-Toshio
Isn't there an AWOL procedure for maintainers?
Maintainers that do not respond to bugs that they are responsible for should be
considered AWOL.
If maintainers can not keep up with the bugs on their packages either the
maintainer should be dropped or the package should be dropped as unmaintained.
HTH
Richard
P.s. we could do with fewer packages. let's weed then out.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
