Excerpts from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek's message of 2018-08-28 08:38 +00:00:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:56:58PM +1000, Dan Callaghan wrote:
> What does it mean for a package to be owned by orphan while it still
> has other admins who are real people?
> Is this some kind of edge case where the package was owned by
> a maintainer who was inactive, and thus their packages got "orphaned",
> even though there are still other maintainers? Is there any record where
> we can see when or why these changes were made?
FESCo voted yesterday to "send info to all co-maintainers and
fedora-devel, [...] after a week reassign to one co-maintainer, if no
co-maintainers, retire". The text in Till's mail was not adjusted to
reflect this. Nevertheless, the plan is to do what was voted.
The reason why we don't just reassign all packages to co-maintainers
right now is that often it's not clear which if any of the other
maintainers are active. So in this first round we ask people to
take ownership explicitly, and will do the automatic procedure for
> And is the solution here that one of the existing co-maintainers should
> just go into the Pagure settings and click... some button to become the
> "main admin" so that it's no longer orphaned?
Unfortunately there is no "button" in pagure, and the process to take
a package is a manual releng ticket.
Yeah, it's all quite a bit more manual and messy than it should be.
Thanks for the explanation, this was the context I was missing.
I have filed a ticket about reassigning python-configobj, we can sort it
out between the existing co-maintainers (whichever are still active) in
Dan Callaghan <dcallagh(a)redhat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies DevOps