If the owner of a former Core package is unresponsive to activity on a Merge Review bug, despite being CCd, and the changes needed are minor, and the reviewer is an uberpackager, is there any reason not to simply commit the changes to cvs with comments and close the bug?
Thanks, Jon
On Tuesday, 09 September 2008 at 14:33, Jon Ciesla wrote:
If the owner of a former Core package is unresponsive to activity on a Merge Review bug, despite being CCd, and the changes needed are minor, and the reviewer is an uberpackager, is there any reason not to simply commit the changes to cvs with comments and close the bug?
Or begin AWOL maintainer procedure?
Regards, R.
On Tuesday, 09 September 2008 at 14:33, Jon Ciesla wrote:
If the owner of a former Core package is unresponsive to activity on a Merge Review bug, despite being CCd, and the changes needed are minor, and the reviewer is an uberpackager, is there any reason not to simply commit the changes to cvs with comments and close the bug?
Or begin AWOL maintainer procedure?
Many are clearly not AWOL. Some of these packages have had a build or two since my last comments. Some owners are RH employees.
In these cases, I've re-reviewed the current build, noted differences, and double-checked ownership and CC status on the bug.
Regards, R.
-- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:33:37AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
If the owner of a former Core package is unresponsive to activity on a Merge Review bug, despite being CCd, and the changes needed are minor, and the reviewer is an uberpackager, is there any reason not to simply commit the changes to cvs with comments and close the bug?
No.
josh
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:33:37AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
If the owner of a former Core package is unresponsive to activity on a Merge Review bug, despite being CCd, and the changes needed are minor, and the reviewer is an uberpackager, is there any reason not to simply commit the changes to cvs with comments and close the bug?
No.
That was the way I was leaning, if my fairly leading question wasn't a big enough hint. :) I'll wait for a further objection period, but likely begin soon.
josh
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:33:37AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
If the owner of a former Core package is unresponsive to activity on a Merge Review bug, despite being CCd, and the changes needed are minor, and the reviewer is an uberpackager, is there any reason not to simply commit the changes to cvs with comments and close the bug?
It may be that they are not receiving bug-mail. Have you tried to email them directly?
Rich.
"RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones rjones@redhat.com writes:
RWMJ> It may be that they are not receiving bug-mail. Have you tried RWMJ> to email them directly?
It's also quite possible that the owner has changed since the merge review ticket was opened (nearly two years ago now) and the new owner isn't CC'd on the ticket.
I would urge caution in just fixing up the packages just before the beta freeze, but once rawhide reopens I would suggest committing as many cleanups as is warranted.
The general problems with merge reviews became apparent just after they were filed. I see two things that need doing:
Existing merge reviews need to be checked to ensure that the current owners are CC'd.
Soon after rawhide branches, a "package cleanup squad" needs to just go through and deal with the packages where merge reviews have stalled.
- J<
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:01:28AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Existing merge reviews need to be checked to ensure that the current owners are CC'd.
Isn't there a <package>-owner@fedoraproject.org that ties into pkgdb that all Bugzilla's for <package> should have as a Initial-Cc? Then the actual owner according to pkgdb will always be up-to-date on all of the package's bugs.
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:33:37AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
If the owner of a former Core package is unresponsive to activity on a Merge Review bug, despite being CCd, and the changes needed are minor, and the reviewer is an uberpackager, is there any reason not to simply commit the changes to cvs with comments and close the bug?
It may be that they are not receiving bug-mail. Have you tried to email them directly?
I had not. I'll start that after the freeze if I get no response.
If someone isn't set up to receive BZ mail, how do they hope to keep abreast of problems with the package?
Rich.
-- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/ Fedora now supports 68 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:55:59AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
If someone isn't set up to receive BZ mail, how do they hope to keep abreast of problems with the package?
A few people *cough* me *cough* get so much Bugzilla mail that we have to aggressively filter it. Usually any packages which are owned by me or bugs which are assigned to me go to my inbox, but I have missed mails from time to time for somewhat inexplicable reasons.
Rich.
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:33:37AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
If the owner of a former Core package is unresponsive to activity on a Merge Review bug, despite being CCd, and the changes needed are minor, and the reviewer is an uberpackager, is there any reason not to simply commit the changes to cvs with comments and close the bug?
For the sake of not surprising the maintainer, I'd recommend just sending them a direct email indicating your intentions and then doing the changes. People here at Red Hat get a tonne of email spam from BugZilla so it is trivial to miss things if it is 1 message in a 100 you get from BZ in a day. So the non-BZ email is more likely to be noticed & avoid the maintainer being surprised at the changes :-)
Daniel
-
Chuck Anderson -
Daniel P. Berrange -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jon Ciesla -
Josh Boyer -
Richard W.M. Jones