#1542 backintime - nonresponsive maintainer
Closed None Opened 8 years ago by raphgro.

backintime package maintainer does not respond. To apply an available new upstream release, I want to take this package. ​https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186184

There's also a request to improve usability of this package. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294274

I've tried for several times to get a response from the obvious maintainer, see my needinfo requests. We could guess this maintainer lost interest in packaging.

There are currently 3 open bugs in RHBZ with no response in recent time. Is cicku the active maintainer as he assigned some of those bugs? He's nonresponsive for this package since 2014-08-12 12:09:25 (last koji build for epel7). Really, 9 bugs about abrt are closed EOL.


It's really sad to see such an useful package in such a sloppy maintainer state.

-1
cicku doesn't comply with the non-responsive definition at all, and this ticket is not following the non-responsive process. And avoid unnecessary comments.
You needinfo him only yesterday!

Please read the non-responsive maintainer policy:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers

Please look into comments of the bugs. There are of course other people already requested response.

There's a process, just follow it. you're supposed to send a mail on the fedora-devel mailing list, at this stage.

Moreover, did you request ACLs? There's no pending request in pkgdb (and if you were denied ACLs, that's an important info)

-1 as the process for nonresponsive package maintainers not followed yet. About cicku I don't think he is nonresponsive as I can see some activity by him -> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw/?user=cicku

Somewhat unrelated to this ticket,
If I understand this output (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw/?package=rabbitvcs&category=pkgdb) correctly then I see Raphgro removed nushio and denied cicku from package maintenance of rabbitvcs. This does not look good. When you takeover some package I am not sure if we have policy to remove/denied package maintenance to existing (co-)owners of that package.

+1+1

For the record:
I've removed nushio and cicku from rabbitvcs cause it's to assume they do not have interest any more. Every packager is free to (re-)request commit access. :)

Further discussion about rabbitvcs should go into the other dedicated ticket for that package. This ticket is for backintime, though it's the same (co-)maintainer.

@raphgro: only active Fesco members can vote. And I agree with pnemade, you're not entitled to remove on your own comaintainers without consulting them.

If they decided to complain about you removing them, I would consider removing you for abusing your ACLs.

Replying to [comment:7 hguemar]:

@raphgro: only active Fesco members can vote. And I agree with pnemade, you're not entitled to remove on your own comaintainers without consulting them.

If they decided to complain about you removing them, I would consider removing you for abusing your ACLs.

Maybe instead of taking an eye-for-an-eye approach here, we can step back and actually work towards something good. Screwing around with package ACLs in that manner is not productive. Let's try and be proactive instead.

@raphgro, Please don't make assumptions about other peoples interests. I realize that the co-maintainers did not step up and fix the various things with rabbitvcs, but that does not mean they should have been removed. They may have been busy, or on vacation, or temporarily unavailable. By dropping their ACLs, you've done nothing good and caused them more work if they do wish to continue to co-maintain. There was no harm in letting them remain co-maintainers.

As you've suggested, please add them back if they re-request. Also, please avoid dropping ACLs in the future without actual confirmation from the people involved.

Replying to [comment:8 jwboyer]:

As you've suggested, please add them back if they re-request. Also, please avoid dropping ACLs in the future without actual confirmation from the people involved.

Done. Sorry for any trouble.

For the sake of completeness, please see the mail to fedora-devel. [1] Given, that the CC was sent out to cicku one day later, than the initial mail. I would suggest, that the time limit for the non-responsive packager should be next week, or? If there's still something missing, please let me know, so that we make it absolutely safe.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ILQTKBMXAOPBDQYBYU64JATBTTSVGKTT/

AGREED: Orphan backintime immediately and orphan the remainder of cicku's packages in one week's time if there is no further contact (+8, 0, 0) (jwboyer, 17:31:07)

nirik to orphan backintime (jwboyer, 17:32:04)

jwb to email devel list about the remainder of the packages (jwboyer, 17:32:13)

backintime has been orphaned.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata