Too much bureaucracy or not enough interest? (Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:37:16 +0100
Mattia Verga <mattia.verga at tiscali.it> wrote:

> I'm just entered the world of Fedora packagers and I see a few points 
> that can be optimized in my opinion.

Welcome by the way. ;) 

> 1. I saw a package that need to be upgraded. I opened a bug in
> bugzilla, after some time whit no response from the maintainer I
> asked in pkgdb permissions for that package: I'm still waiting, after
> two weeks, that the maintainer gives me such permissions. So why I
> can take an orphaned package with automatic procedure and I cannot
> apply as co-maintainer in the same manner?

We talked about, but never finished implementing a timeout on acl
requests. 

The way this would work is that maintainer would have some time.. 3
weeks or something to reject a acl request. If they did not do so,
pkgdb would automatically approve it at the end of the time. 
This would help in cases where the maintainer is overloaded or not
paying attention. 

> 2. In review requests I see some of them are requests for existent 
> packages that should be renamed. Why bothering reviewers (that are
> not so much, I think, looking at the long list of reviews pending)
> with this extra-work only to rename an existing package?

It's very easy to mess up however, so we determined that a review was
needed. Many times people don't do the obsoletes and provides correctly
for the old name. 

> In my opinion these two points can be modified to have less
> bureaucracy and to make things working a bit faster.

Thanks for the ideas!

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120115/3e1e2181/attachment-0001.sig>