Plan for tomorrows (20080207) FESCO meeting

[Patrice Dumas]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 07:55:18PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:48:41 +0100
> Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:23:05PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > 
> > > We don't need a general rule.  We need you to bring up these specific
> > > examples when they happen and FESCo can deal with those at that time.
> > > That's what the general rule would boil down to anyway.
> > 
> > I have something like 9 of such bugs, I don't think that it scales well
> > to ask FESCO. And what to ask to FESCO? Hello, I have all those bugs not
> > addressed, please do something? Maybe ther may be a better solution?
> 
> 9 bugs for 9 separate maintainers?  Or one maintainer with 9 bugs?  Or?

Almost all different maintainers.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=203620
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=383561
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=380611
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=373861
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=350651
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=380621
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=203542
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=203642
This one could also simply be denied
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=350641
This one may be controversial
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398521

Many issues raised in merge reviews and not taken into account by 
maintainers also fall in that category.

>  Seriously, what would you consider reasonable to do in situations like
> you described (but still haven't given specifics to)?

I don't know exactly. But what I see is a failure in the organization of
fedora.

> If you have an actual proposal, we can certainly review it.

I don't have a proposal, I thought about it (including what I should do
for these bugs), but I haven't found a solution. So I was hoping that
people in FESCo (and everyone reading the list) could try to think
about a way to handle those situations.

> Personally, I find situations like that to differ in the details
> enough that I'm not sure there is a sufficient general solution.  It
> seems to me asking FESCo to review those on a case-by-case basis would
> cover most things.  It won't scale to hundreds of bugs or dozens of
> maintainers, but if that starts being the case we've failed elsewhere.

I don't think that it scales even for 9 bugs. This situation reveals a
failure in the organization of fedora, and in my opinion it would be
nice to have a way out of it.


To be clear, the organizational failure is that some bugs with patches
or trivial to fix, with a submitter ready to do the work should not stay
open for more than something like about 7 days (unless maintainer is in
vacations, and it is something like a mean, there could be exceptions).

--
Pat