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

Re: Collective maintenance





On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Jon Ciesla <limb jcomserv net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> A friend of mine pinged me and asked about the status of this bug
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442921
>
> Just using this as an example here since it a simple one. This is
> apparently just a simple missing dependency but hasn't been fixed in a
> while. Just using this as a example, assuming that the maintainer is
> busy, on vacation or something and cvsextras is open, many others could
> fix this issue bypassing the primary maintainer for the moment but there
> doesn't seem to be any policy on what kind of fixes can be collectively
> done. I remember seeing similar discussions before so this isn't a
> isolated problem. Do we need some guidelines on this so folks like
> Michael Schwendt (again, just as an example specific to this bug report)
> can just go ahead and fix the problem noting the details in the commit
> message instead of having to file a bug report?

My left brain side says, maybe we need a policy.  My right brain side
says, if the acl is open, and you can fix it, fix it.

Might actually check out doing that on some easy bugs I've reported.


It's a tough call, and really comes down to an issue by issue thing.  In this issue there are a couple things going against it.

1) It's a bug regarding a released version, so any changes would require bodhi updates

2) it's essentially enabling a feature, that may or may not work and one would hope that if there was a reason this wasn't turned on, it would be listed in the spec file.

For those reasons, I wouldn't be quick to jump in and try to fix it.  It'd be worth doing a scratch build just to see if it would compile, and maybe work but I still wouldn't feel comfortable without talking to the maintainer in question first.

--
Jes


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