Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:Patrice Dumas wrote:Instead of orphaning, what about adding comaintainers? That makes for more responsibility on the part of the person who thinks that the bug is an easy fix to evaluate this in terms of correctness, the future effects of the patch, and what is going on upstream.On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:59:24AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 02:04:47AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:I have hopefully adressed th ecomments, by stating that this is a policyhttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenancefor bug fixes, not easy bug as such. Also added a 3 weeks delay before the procedure is started, precise a bit what is a bug easy to fix and put explicitely the cleaning of blocker bugs on the reporter.Still on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenanceThe intro covers that:"If this occurs over a long period of time, the maintainers should seek out co-maintainers or just be orphaning the software packages they are not interested in. If it does happen for a shorter periods, others can act as a buffer to avoid the problem lingering for our user"
What I'm asking is instead of:"If you don't answer after 2 weeks, a reminder should be sent, and if not answered within a further 2 weeks the package will be orphaned according to the policy stated at"
We could have:"If you don't answer after 2 weeks, a reminder should be sent, and if not answered within a further 2 weeks My_Username will be assigned as a comaintainer and can make changes according to the policy stated at"
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
