Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I see that as a benefit. It doesn't make much sense to me to make this transition::Toshio Kuratomi wrote: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"I am not sure we want to add someone as a co-maintainer just because the person is interested in seeing a new build with a particular fix. Co-maintainership involves a little more long term commitment than a one time fix.
Package has a maintainer that is active in fedora but is ignoring a particular bug report which may or may not contain a correct fix to the stated problem => Package becomes orphaned, possibly discarding any ideas the maintainer had for fixing the bug but forgot to write into the bug report.
This seems like a better transition:Package has a maintainer that is active in Fedora but is ignoring a particular bug report => Package gets a comaintainer who has time to hit the low hanging fruit on the package and can take some of the burden off of the current package maintainer.
Even the current state of affairs is better for some criteria:Package has a maintainer active in Fedora but is ignoring a particular bug report => Package continues to get updated for new upstream releases but the particular bug does not get addressed.
-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
