Maintainer Responsibility Policy

[Brian Pepple]

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 11:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I'm not sure that's strong enough. It should clearly state that the
> package maintainer is responsible for getting bugs fixed -- if the
> package maintainer isn't a coder, then they need to take a more
> managerial röle; working with upstream or with code-monkeys within
> Fedora to get things fixed. How about this:
> 
> If there are bugs which you aren't capable of fixing yourself because
> they deal with intricacies of the source code which you don't fully
> understand, then you still need to address these bugs. It can be helpful
> to work with the upstream maintainer of the code, obtain help from more
> code-oriented people on fedora-devel, or check other distributions for
> patches. Always be sure to post to the bug report what you have done so
> that the reporter knows what it happening and what to expect.
> It is recommended that non-coder packagers should find co-maintainers
> who are familiar with the programming language used by their package(s),
> and can help with such bugs as a kind of 'second line support'.

Added your suggestion.

Thanks,
/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080507/5fde4a3a/attachment.sig>