Hi all,
I tried to contact tuxbrewr some weeks ago (due to quassel bug fixes and maintainance), without any response. Does anybody know how to contact him? I already tried smparrish@gmail.com without success.
Info: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294472
Greetings, Christian
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:48:25 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:
Hi all,
I tried to contact tuxbrewr some weeks ago (due to quassel bug fixes and maintainance), without any response. Does anybody know how to contact him? I already tried smparrish@gmail.com without success.
The same procedure has been started a few times, at least
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/736874 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/963890
Requesting co-maintainer access would be a way to solve such isues.
On 01/12/2016 10:00 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The same procedure has been started a few times, at least
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/736874 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/963890
Requesting co-maintainer access would be a way to solve such isues. --
I requested it in pkgdb some weeks ago. Got no response, thats why I started the unresponsive maintainer procedure.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:17:37 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:
The same procedure has been started a few times, at least
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/736874 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/963890
Requesting co-maintainer access would be a way to solve such isues.
I requested it in pkgdb some weeks ago. Got no response, thats why I started the unresponsive maintainer procedure.
Isn't that tedious, inefficient and a waste of time? Having to start the non-responsive maintainer procedure again and again just to get a response (hopefully)? How long have the packages been unmaintained this time? Why protect the package from getting a few co-maintainers? Would help not be welcome in this case? Would FESCo insist on waiting for the procedure to be completed instead of granting an exception?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers#...
Now I dunno whether you would be happy with a belated response from the maintainer, but something obviously doesn't work well here.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:30:27PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Isn't that tedious, inefficient and a waste of time?
As all of the unresponsive maintainer procedure.
Could we adjust the tooling so that a request for commit access is automatically granted if it isn't answered within three months?
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Sven Lankes sven@lank.es wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:30:27PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Isn't that tedious, inefficient and a waste of time?
As all of the unresponsive maintainer procedure.
Could we adjust the tooling so that a request for commit access is automatically granted if it isn't answered within three months?
That's a potential security problem. If I, for example, can get commit access to any idle program by claiming it when the original maintainer is most busy, with no review or doublecheck of my quality as a new maintainer, I can commit madness on a lot of low maintenance projects. Given so many thousands of Fedora packages, it could get fascinatingly risky, especially if I start committing intriguing little '%post' procedures that interfere in subtle ways with other packages.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:06:40AM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Could we adjust the tooling so that a request for commit access is automatically granted if it isn't answered within three months?
That's a potential security problem. If I, for example, can get commit access to any idle program by claiming it when the original maintainer is most busy, with no review or doublecheck of my quality as a new maintainer, I can commit madness on a lot of low maintenance projects.
As I understand it, your sponsor is supposed to look after your commits.
Given so many thousands of Fedora packages, it could get fascinatingly risky, especially if I start committing intriguing little '%post' procedures that interfere in subtle ways with other packages.
Yes - there is a risk. But the large number of ignored packages in my mind is the higher security risk.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:27:03 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
As I understand it, your sponsor is supposed to look after your commits.
Not forever, though. Sponsorship is not a life-time duty, and monitoring git commits isn't either. It's not even mentioned as a responsibility. There are sponsors who don't do anything like that after approval a single review request.
Strange things can happen, too. Sometimes, packagers submit flawless packages for review, and once included in the collection, after some months the packagers start messing up the packages in various ways. They would not pass a review anymore.
Christian Dersch wrote:
I tried to contact tuxbrewr some weeks ago (due to quassel bug fixes and maintainance), without any response. Does anybody know how to contact him? I already tried smparrish@gmail.com without success.
FYI, it's been a long long time since we last heard from tuxbrewr here in the KDE SIG. I'd have thought he had been declared AWOL a long time ago.
Kevin Kofler