who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

[Chen Lei]

2010/7/2 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:40:11 +0200, Matěj wrote:
>
>> Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
>> > Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans
>> > to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons
>> > for not upgrading the package. Just ask!
>>
>> The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about "owning" a
>> package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in
>> my thinking.
>
> The provenpackager, who has had 8 month to notice such a problem, has had
> 8 months to start the non-responsive maintainer procedure. What will
> happen the next time the package is affected by a bad problem? Does the
> same provenpackager now keep an eye on the package and will be available
> to fix it much sooner? Or will it takes 8 months again, because that is
> possible in the Fedora package collection?
>

This procedure is a bit idealistic, IMHO.

A package which has a FTBFS bug will wait for two release cycles
before orphaning it, it's too long(many of those FTBFS packages can
work properly). Furthermore, we don't even have a way to orphan a
particular package which is unmaintained or has a lot of unsolved
issues but don't have a FTBFS bug.

Regards,
Chen Lei