On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:53:53 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > All if would have taken to avoid this issue was a note saying "I'm > > really busy right now; someone please rebuild my packages and if you > > like add yourself as a co-maintainer." Problem solved. This happens > > all the time. We even have SIGs which act as virtual co-maintainers. > > The problem was the maintainer said "I will personally take care of my > package" and then didn't, effectively taking it hostage. At some point > after he said he'd rebuild it, it was determined to simply drop it > without giving it a fair chance to be reclaimed. But you and him are used to deadlines like this. It was simply not enough for the maintainer to make only a promise in order to escape from the deadline, because maintenance _action_ was needed. The process required maintainers to work on the package in a given time-frame and at least submit a rebuild job, as else the package would continue to show up on the radar of those who monitor where the FE6 preparation still fails. > Nothing against david, I'm good friends with him, but the issue is just > simply before a package gets dropped, people need a chance to reclaim > it. That did not happen. The process seems great for when the package > maintainer says "no i don't want to deal with this" anymore, but it > seems to fall down when they say "I'm still here" but then aren't. Co-maintainership to the rescue. Where a maintainer rejects co-maintainers, conflict resolvement through FESCo to the rescue. What else is needed? -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
