--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-06-2008, 06:03 AM
"Debarshi Ray"
Request for ownership: zile maintainer not responding
Jason,
Please don't close [2] since that is a consequence of the
Non-Responsive Maintainer procedure initiated by [1]. As a result [1]
depends on [2]. The review request is necessary since Zile was last
built for Fedora Core 6 and has not been updated for a long time.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-06-2008, 08:44 AM
Jason L Tibbitts III
Request for ownership: zile maintainer not responding
>>>>> "DR" == Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@gmail.com> writes:
DR> Jason, Please don't close [2] since that is a consequence of the
DR> Non-Responsive Maintainer procedure initiated by [1].
Well, if you want to go making your own process....
DR> The review request is necessary since Zile was last built for
DR> Fedora Core 6 and has not been updated for a long time.
Zile is still in the repo and was last built for the GCC 4.3 rebuild.
I'm not aware of any rule requiring re-reviews of packages which were
have not been removed from the distro. What am I missing?
- J<
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-06-2008, 09:48 AM
"Debarshi Ray"
Request for ownership: zile maintainer not responding
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Please note that although I filed the initial bug (as required by the
Non-Responsive Maintainer policy) against Zile, the person actually
interested in taking it over (ie. Rakesh) is not an existing Fedora
contributor. Even though the policy page
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers)
says "If the requester is a not an existing Fedora contributor, he may
still take over a package", it does not mention how that would be
possible. The usual way is to submit a review request and wait for a
sponsor.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
> DR> Jason, Please don't close [2] since that is a consequence of the
> DR> Non-Responsive Maintainer procedure initiated by [1].
> Well, if you want to go making your own process....
See "Old becomes new" on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/OrphanedPackages
Now, although the package has not been orphaned, the maintainer has
simply disappeared. I managed to get hold of two email IDs associated
with him (one of them was his FAS ID) and none of them are working any
more.
> DR> The review request is necessary since Zile was last built for
> DR> Fedora Core 6 and has not been updated for a long time.
> Zile is still in the repo and was last built for the GCC 4.3 rebuild.
> I'm not aware of any rule requiring re-reviews of packages which were
> have not been removed from the distro.
If a maintainer disappears without orphaning any of his packages, I
fail to see how the situation is different from this one. The presence
of Zile in the repository is simply an accident as none of us noticed
that the maintainer has disappeared, and possibly Zile did not have
any major bugs filed against it.
On Fedora 8, the most recent build available was tagged .fc6.
Even if it was built for GCC 4.3 during the Fedora 9 cycle, it only
means that the package still builds from source. That is of little
value here because the entity performing the rebuild did not notice
the fact that no human had touched the package sources for such a long
time, and that the maintainer was AWOL.
Regards,
Debarshi
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-06-2008, 10:21 AM
Michael Schwendt
Request for ownership: zile maintainer not responding
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:18:53 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> Please note that although I filed the initial bug (as required by the
> Non-Responsive Maintainer policy) against Zile, the person actually
> interested in taking it over (ie. Rakesh) is not an existing Fedora
> contributor. Even though the policy page
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers)
> says "If the requester is a not an existing Fedora contributor, he may
> still take over a package", it does not mention how that would be
> possible. The usual way is to submit a review request and wait for a
> sponsor.
No, the usual way for new contributors is to find a sponsor.
It doesn't matter how they do it.
Submitting packages for review is just one way to look for sponsors.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-06-2008, 10:24 AM
"Debarshi Ray"
Request for ownership: zile maintainer not responding
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> No, the usual way for new contributors is to find a sponsor.
> It doesn't matter how they do it.
>
> Submitting packages for review is just one way to look for sponsors.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-06-2008, 10:48 AM
Till Maas
Request for ownership: zile maintainer not responding
On Friday 06 June 2008 11:48:53 Debarshi Ray wrote:
> Please note that although I filed the initial bug (as required by the
> Non-Responsive Maintainer policy) against Zile, the person actually
> interested in taking it over (ie. Rakesh) is not an existing Fedora
> contributor. Even though the policy page
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaint
>ainers) says "If the requester is a not an existing Fedora contributor, he
> may still take over a package", it does not mention how that would be
> possible. The usual way is to submit a review request and wait for a
> sponsor.
In the outline section of this wikipage it is explained how to do this:
| If you are a not an existing Fedora contributor, you can still take over a
| package. All of the above must be followed. When you seek approval for the
| takeover, you, again, must provide a bugzilla report as if it were a new
| Fedora package review.
[...]
Regards,
Till
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-06-2008, 11:09 AM
"Rakesh Pandit"
Request for ownership: zile maintainer not responding
2008/6/6 Till Maas <opensource@till.name>:
[..]
> In the outline section of this wikipage it is explained how to do this:
>
> | If you are a not an existing Fedora contributor, you can still take over a
> | package. All of the above must be followed. When you seek approval for the
> | takeover, you, again, must provide a bugzilla report as if it were a new
> | Fedora package review.
> [...]
>
> Regards,
> Till
>
If I follow those points, along with review, I should wait for at
least one FESco
member approval before taking over and I am waiting.
--
Regards,
Rakesh Pandit
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-06-2008, 11:42 AM
"Mat Booth"
Request for ownership: zile maintainer not responding
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> No, the usual way for new contributors is to find a sponsor.
>> It doesn't matter how they do it.
>>
>> Submitting packages for review is just one way to look for sponsors.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
Request for ownership: zile maintainer not responding
