[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Plan for tomorrows (20080207) FESCO meeting

On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 07:55:18PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:48:41 +0100
> Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:23:05PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > 
> > > We don't need a general rule.  We need you to bring up these specific
> > > examples when they happen and FESCo can deal with those at that time.
> > > That's what the general rule would boil down to anyway.
> > 
> > I have something like 9 of such bugs, I don't think that it scales well
> > to ask FESCO. And what to ask to FESCO? Hello, I have all those bugs not
> > addressed, please do something? Maybe ther may be a better solution?
> 9 bugs for 9 separate maintainers?  Or one maintainer with 9 bugs?  Or?

Almost all different maintainers.

This one could also simply be denied
This one may be controversial

Many issues raised in merge reviews and not taken into account by 
maintainers also fall in that category.

>  Seriously, what would you consider reasonable to do in situations like
> you described (but still haven't given specifics to)?

I don't know exactly. But what I see is a failure in the organization of

> If you have an actual proposal, we can certainly review it.

I don't have a proposal, I thought about it (including what I should do
for these bugs), but I haven't found a solution. So I was hoping that
people in FESCo (and everyone reading the list) could try to think
about a way to handle those situations.

> Personally, I find situations like that to differ in the details
> enough that I'm not sure there is a sufficient general solution.  It
> seems to me asking FESCo to review those on a case-by-case basis would
> cover most things.  It won't scale to hundreds of bugs or dozens of
> maintainers, but if that starts being the case we've failed elsewhere.

I don't think that it scales even for 9 bugs. This situation reveals a
failure in the organization of fedora, and in my opinion it would be
nice to have a way out of it.

To be clear, the organizational failure is that some bugs with patches
or trivial to fix, with a submitter ready to do the work should not stay
open for more than something like about 7 days (unless maintainer is in
vacations, and it is something like a mean, there could be exceptions).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]