On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 07:30:13AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > First of all, I agree that non-repsonsive ness to easy bugs and / or > bugs with patches attached is an issue. > > But I'm not sure this is a good solution. There are really 2 problems here: > 1) The person responsible for the package is letting these bugs linger > 2) Others do not fix it, even though they could, because they are afraid > of stepping on each other's toes, as you correctly point out. > > I feel that your policy completely fails to address 2), whereas that > might be one of the more important points. For example I don't mind I agree. But this is not the intent of this policy, I mean even if 2) is easier (and it has became a lot easier already) it may happen that something is needed to have the maintainer react. > other people touching my packages _at all_, which can be seen from there > ACL's. So we could have a policy that says that "easy fixes" (whatever > the definition) may be done by anyone with CVS extras without a prior > headsup, when the ACL's allow it. IOW, codify in policy that the ACL > signals how much a developer minds other people touching his packages. I don't think we should mix the ACL with the intent to allow anybody to fix packages. Having open ACL also allows to have a package fixed for cases already covered by the WhoIsAllowedToModifyWhichPackages policy, for example. > Another possible solution would be a I don't mind my toes getting > stepped on list in the wiki. I think that it should better be in the packagedb. But I am not sure that it will fix the case I did the policy for, since if somebody is really opened like you are, a simple comment in the bug like 'you can do it' is very low cost, but I personally have never seen such a comment on the typical bugs that triggered me to do this policy. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
