8:25 a.m.
Hi,
So I get a regular reminder for "Your Outstanding Requests"
However, a bunch of these are on closed bugs. It seems stuck somehow in
thinking it needs something from me. For example:
Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043 days old)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827&action=edit
This bug is already closed. And has no "flags" set. In the past someone
set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me. But
I cannot get rid of it.
I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
these?
Paul
8:35 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:25:12AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
Hi,
So I get a regular reminder for "Your Outstanding Requests"
However, a bunch of these are on closed bugs. It seems stuck somehow in
thinking it needs something from me. For example:
Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043 days old)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827&action=edit
This bug is already closed. And has no "flags" set. In the past someone
set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me. But
I cannot get rid of it.
I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
these?
Paul
msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.
P
8:39 a.m.
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Petr Šabata wrote:
> Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL
(1043 days old)
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827&action=edit
>
> This bug is already closed. And has no "flags" set. In the past someone
> set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me. But
> I cannot get rid of it.
>
> I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
> these?
>
> Paul
msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.
Yes, on 2012-05-21 the review flag was set to me.
On 2013-07-04, Tomas Hozza set the review flag to +
I closed the bug on 2013-07-08.
There are currently no flags set at all.
Paul
8:48 a.m.
Dne 30.3.2015 v 15:39 Paul Wouters napsal(a):
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Petr Šabata wrote:
>> Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043
>> days old)
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827&action=edit
>>
>> This bug is already closed. And has no "flags" set. In the past
someone
>> set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me.
>> But
>> I cannot get rid of it.
>>
>> I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
>> these?
>>
>> Paul
>
> msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
> Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.
Yes, on 2012-05-21 the review flag was set to me.
On 2013-07-04, Tomas Hozza set the review flag to +
I closed the bug on 2013-07-08.
There are currently no flags set at all.
Paul
I can see:
msekleta: review ? pwouters(a)redhat.com
So if thozza + is enough, you should probably clear this flag.
Vít
8:48 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:39:31AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Petr Šabata wrote:
>> Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043 days old)
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827&action=edit
>>
>>This bug is already closed. And has no "flags" set. In the past
someone
>>set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me. But
>>I cannot get rid of it.
>>
>>I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
>>these?
>>
>>Paul
>
>msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
>Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.
Yes, on 2012-05-21 the review flag was set to me.
On 2013-07-04, Tomas Hozza set the review flag to +
I closed the bug on 2013-07-08.
There are currently no flags set at all.
Paul
As I understand it you were asked for input on the patch which
you haven't provided yet. The review(pwouters) flag is still
set to `?'. thozza's review+ didn't change that.
P
8:52 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:48:23PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:39:31AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Petr Šabata wrote:
>
> >> Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043 days
old)
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827&action=edit
> >>
> >>This bug is already closed. And has no "flags" set. In the past
someone
> >>set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me. But
> >>I cannot get rid of it.
> >>
> >>I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
> >>these?
> >>
> >>Paul
> >
> >msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
> >Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.
>
> Yes, on 2012-05-21 the review flag was set to me.
> On 2013-07-04, Tomas Hozza set the review flag to +
> I closed the bug on 2013-07-08.
>
> There are currently no flags set at all.
>
> Paul
As I understand it you were asked for input on the patch which
you haven't provided yet. The review(pwouters) flag is still
set to `?'. thozza's review+ didn't change that.
P
Shouldn't the bug being closed superseed the flags though? Whats the point of
reviewing something thats already been resolved?
I ask because I get these on occasion too, and don't really want to waste time
with busywork setting flags on closed bugs.
Neil
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
8:55 a.m.
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> There are currently no flags set at all.
Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
for closed bugs.
Paul
9:35 a.m.
On 2015-03-30 9:55 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>
>> There are currently no flags set at all.
>
> Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
for closed bugs.
+1
Paul
1:27 p.m.
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >
> > There are currently no flags set at all.
>
> Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
for closed bugs.
This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately
discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing information.
"Closed" does not always imply "no further discussion is needed or
desired".
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
3:17 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> > On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > >
> > > There are currently no flags set at all.
> >
> > Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
>
> Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
> to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
> for closed bugs.
This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately
discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing information.
"Closed" does not always imply "no further discussion is needed or
desired".
I would assert the opposite to be true. That is to say a state of "closed" by
definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or consideration. In
the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of comments,
likely should not be in the state "closed".
Neil
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
3:37 p.m.
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:17 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are currently no flags set at all.
> > >
> > > Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
> >
> > Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
> > to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all
> > requests
> > for closed bugs.
>
> This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately
> discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing
> information.
> "Closed" does not always imply "no further discussion is needed or
> desired".
I would assert the opposite to be true. That is to say a state of
"closed" by
definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or
consideration. In
the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of
comments,
likely should not be in the state "closed".
Dictating use of BZ is usually a futile effort, in Fedora. We have a
policy on it which is in practice rarely observed by anyone. What
should or should not be the cause is pretty much moot: what *is* the
case is that it makes sense to some of our BZ users to not treat
CLOSED in the way you advocate. BZ is, fundamentally, a tool, and
tools usually get used in the way that makes sense to the user.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
3:48 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:17 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are currently no flags set at all.
> > > >
> > > > Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
> > >
> > > Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
> > > to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all
> > > requests
> > > for closed bugs.
> >
> > This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately
> > discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing
> > information.
> > "Closed" does not always imply "no further discussion is needed
or
> > desired".
>
> I would assert the opposite to be true. That is to say a state of
> "closed" by
> definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or
> consideration. In
> the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of
> comments,
> likely should not be in the state "closed".
Dictating use of BZ is usually a futile effort, in Fedora. We have a
policy on it which is in practice rarely observed by anyone. What
should or should not be the cause is pretty much moot: what *is* the
case is that it makes sense to some of our BZ users to not treat
CLOSED in the way you advocate. BZ is, fundamentally, a tool, and
tools usually get used in the way that makes sense to the user.
Ah, so true. Except "user" is just as ambiguous as bug state. The
component owner is just as much a user as the reporter. It might make
sense to one user to not discuss bugs in CLOSED where to another user
it does. Having the metadata around the bug editable by anyone is
really kind of a bad design. So much confusion.
TLDR; bugzilla is terrible (but it's the best thing we have). The
only data that actually matters is that which is contained in the
comments section, and even that is pretty suspect most days.
josh
11:06 p.m.
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:48 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Dictating use of BZ is usually a futile effort, in Fedora. We have
> a
> policy on it which is in practice rarely observed by anyone. What
> should or should not be the cause is pretty much moot: what *is*
> the
> case is that it makes sense to some of our BZ users to not treat
> CLOSED in the way you advocate. BZ is, fundamentally, a tool, and
> tools usually get used in the way that makes sense to the user.
Ah, so true. Except "user" is just as ambiguous as bug state. The
component owner is just as much a user as the reporter.
That is the definition I was working with, yeah. I tend to see the
people who own the bugs as the main users of Bugzilla, not the people
who report them.
It might make
sense to one user to not discuss bugs in CLOSED where to another user
it does.
Indeed, this is sort of the point I was trying to make; that it's not
necessarily safe to make universal assumptions like 'if the bug's
closed, no-one will want notifications about requested actions'.
Having the metadata around the bug editable by anyone is
really kind of a bad design. So much confusion.
It's not actually editable by anyone, in fact there's rather a complex
permissions system somewhat hidden behind the scenes. If you're a
packager you don't much notice it because you mostly have permission
to do most things (though not quite *everything*, see e.g. review
flags) on any bug (you have 'editbugs' permissions). People who aren't
packagers (or QA team members, or a couple of other ways you can get
'editbugs') don't have that, and can only make changes (besides adding
comments and attachments) to bugs they submitted (or bugs that are
assigned to them, but just about anyone who can own bugs has
'editbugs' anyhow).
TLDR; bugzilla is terrible (but it's the best thing we have).
The
only data that actually matters is that which is contained in the
comments section, and even that is pretty suspect most days.
Sure. Basically what I'm saying is, if you're scripting interactions
with Bugzilla, you need to be aware of the fact that there is no
single universal workflow, different 'users' (however you define that)
use it differently and your tool/script should account for that.
When all's said and done, maybe the thing that makes most sense for
this 'notify of requested actions' *is* 'don't send any notifications
for closed bugs', but even if it is, that's a 'least worst option'
decision, not a 'this is obviously correct' decision.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
6:52 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 01:37:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:17 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are currently no flags set at all.
> > > >
> > > > Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
> > >
> > > Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
> > > to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all
> > > requests
> > > for closed bugs.
> >
> > This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately
> > discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing
> > information.
> > "Closed" does not always imply "no further discussion is needed
or
> > desired".
>
> I would assert the opposite to be true. That is to say a state of
> "closed" by
> definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or
> consideration. In
> the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of
> comments,
> likely should not be in the state "closed".
Dictating use of BZ is usually a futile effort, in Fedora. We have a
policy on it which is in practice rarely observed by anyone. What
should or should not be the cause is pretty much moot: what *is* the
case is that it makes sense to some of our BZ users to not treat
CLOSED in the way you advocate. BZ is, fundamentally, a tool, and
tools usually get used in the way that makes sense to the user.
Ok, I agree that dictating use is typically futile, everyone uses bugzilla in a
slightly different way, like it or not. However, in this particular case we
have a tool (some bot that scans bugzilla sending us emails about them), that
handles interpretation of that data in way thats different from what many of us
humans interpret it (that is to say, it ignores the closed state when we
consider it to mean a bugzilla no longer needs review/commentary). Humans I can
understand having different views, but the tools should provide the humans with
what we need here. In this case I think that means one of the following:
1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a majority
consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen)
2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to optionally ignore (1)
3) Update bugzilla to automatically reopen closed bugs that receive a new
comment or status change (not a fan of this)
4) Some other solution I've not thought of yet
Just accepting that the tools send us email for bz's we're not interested in
doesn't seem like a reasonable solution here.
Neil
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
12:56 p.m.
Humans I can
understand having different views, but the tools should provide the humans with
what we need here. In this case I think that means one of the following:
1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a majority
consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen)
2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to optionally ignore
(1)
Surely the right thing is to not have any “unreviewed” patches in a closed bug by the time
the bug is closed. (New unreviewed patches could arrive after the bug has been closed,
same as new comments, but that is AFAICS not the situation prompting this thread.)
Ignoring the inconsistent state of unreviewed patches in a closed bug is at best a
band-aid.
If we modify bugzilla at all, I would suggest to modify it as to resolve the review flags
in patches while closing a bug (by marking them as reviewed, as refused, by dropping the
review=? flags, or perhaps by saking).
Mirek
6:58 p.m.
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 13:56 -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Humans I can
> understand having different views, but the tools should provide
> the humans with
> what we need here. In this case I think that means one of the
> following:
>
> 1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a
> majority
> consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen)
>
> 2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to
> optionally ignore
> (1)
Surely the right thing is to not have any “unreviewed” patches in a
closed bug by the time the bug is closed. (New unreviewed patches
could arrive after the bug has been closed, same as new comments,
but that is AFAICS not the situation prompting this thread.)
Ignoring the inconsistent state of unreviewed patches in a closed
bug is at best a band-aid.
If we modify bugzilla at all, I would suggest to modify it as to
resolve the review flags in patches while closing a bug (by marking
them as reviewed, as refused, by dropping the review=? flags, or
perhaps by saking).
The mails do not just cover patch review. They cover the 'needinfo'
state as well: you get a reminder for any bug which has a 'needinfo'
flag set for you.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
4:57 a.m.
On 2.4.2015 01:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 13:56 -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> Humans I can
>> understand having different views, but the tools should provide
>> the humans with
>> what we need here. In this case I think that means one of the
>> following:
>>
>> 1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a
>> majority
>> consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen)
>>
>> 2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to
>> optionally ignore
>> (1)
>
> Surely the right thing is to not have any “unreviewed” patches in a
> closed bug by the time the bug is closed. (New unreviewed patches
> could arrive after the bug has been closed, same as new comments,
> but that is AFAICS not the situation prompting this thread.)
> Ignoring the inconsistent state of unreviewed patches in a closed
> bug is at best a band-aid.
>
> If we modify bugzilla at all, I would suggest to modify it as to
> resolve the review flags in patches while closing a bug (by marking
> them as reviewed, as refused, by dropping the review=? flags, or
> perhaps by saking).
The mails do not just cover patch review. They cover the 'needinfo'
state as well: you get a reminder for any bug which has a 'needinfo'
flag set for you.
Which is IMHO a Good Thing. I personally add needinfo? to closed bugs when I
need to get more information about the issue, e.g. when writing a test for it
or so.
--
Petr Spacek @ Red Hat
3:34 a.m.
Dne 30.3.2015 v 22:17 Neil Horman napsal(a):
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>>> There are currently no flags set at all.
>>> Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
>> Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
>> to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
>> for closed bugs.
> This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately
> discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing information.
> "Closed" does not always imply "no further discussion is needed or
> desired".
I would assert the opposite to be true. That is to say a state of "closed" by
definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or consideration. In
the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of comments,
likely should not be in the state "closed".
Is "Thank you" comment allowed after the bug is closed?
Vít
Neil
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
6:54 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:34:47AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 30.3.2015 v 22:17 Neil Horman napsal(a):
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>>>> There are currently no flags set at all.
>>>> Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
>>> Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
>>> to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
>>> for closed bugs.
>> This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately
>> discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing information.
>> "Closed" does not always imply "no further discussion is needed
or
>> desired".
> I would assert the opposite to be true. That is to say a state of
"closed" by
> definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or consideration. In
> the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of comments,
> likely should not be in the state "closed".
Is "Thank you" comment allowed after the bug is closed?
Sure I don't see why not. This in my mind is more about the flags.
Neil
Vít
>
> Neil
>
>> --
>> Adam Williamson
>> Fedora QA Community Monkey
>> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
>> http://www.happyassassin.net
>>
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
3305
days inactive
3308
days old
19 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Adam Williamson -
Fernando Nasser -
Josh Boyer -
Michael Cronenworth -
Miloslav Trmač -
Neil Horman -
Paul Wouters -
Petr Spacek -
Petr Šabata -
Vít Ondruch