[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: Pending ACLs
From:       Dennis Gilmore <dennis () ausil ! us>
Date:       2016-08-09 15:34:33
Message-ID: 1607883.Jb3f2IkmEr () ra ! ausil ! us
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 10:36:11 AM CDT Helio Chissini de Castro wrote:
> Not works.

I do not understand what  does not work

> You need then talk with the requester and then decide to deny or not.
> And if he tries again, do the process again.
> What you can' t do is letting anyone waiting or making the package hostage.
Sometimes talking does not get anywhere and you reach an impase and you should 
just leave the acls be pending. The package is not held hostage in anyway 
shape or form. I honestly think you are attacking this from the wrong angle.

> About the notifications, yes, everyone get notifications if set your email
> properly or use @fedoraproject, and is working well as delivering.
> So increase the amount of notifications or do it in public lists will not
> fix the issue that is really is, the package
> owner. Would even piss of more the maintainers or other users ( in case of
> public )
not sure what this is dirrected at
> 
> If he decide to ignore or just not reading, then all efforts to " increase"
> or " improve" notifications system is useless.
> 
> Packages should have at least two lead owners and one group that can take
> equal decisions over it.
why?  please give some reasoning

> 
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 7:37 PM, <dennis@ausil.us> wrote:
> > Sometimes a maintainer doesn't want to approve ACLs for "reasons" but
> > doesn't want to reject the request for various reasons including the
> > requestor re-request of denied requests.
> > 
> > Dennis
> > 
> > On August 5, 2016 3:34:58 PM GMT+02:00, Helio Chissini de Castro <
> > 
> > helio@kde.org> wrote:
> >> I have a strong opinion over this
> >> 
> >> All the ACL's should be accepted, doesn't matter the level.
> >> And why i think of this ?
> >> 
> >> Two simple reasons:
> >> - The packager abandoned the package, because several reasons, and then
> >> is far away from Fedora systems for some time
> >> - The packager is actively using Fedora, but seen not care to even
> >> properly take care of his package, not in the minimal sense to deny the
> >> ACL, which would be acceptable.
> >> 
> >> In both cases, the package became hostage to someone that for sure aren't
> >> caring much for the distro, unless prove me wrong.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@pingoured.fr>
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:14:02AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> >>> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 20:41:56 +0100
> >>> > 
> >>> > "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:43:40PM +0200, Fabio Alessandro Locati
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > > > Hi all,
> >>> > > > 
> >>> > > > This morning, during the automation workshop, I had the occasion
> >>> > > > of
> >>> > > > speaking about this with Pingou and Threebean.
> >>> > > > Thanks to Pingou hints, I've created a query to get pending ACL
> >>> 
> >>> from
> >>> 
> >>> > > > pkgdb.
> >>> > > > What I'd like to share with you all is the list of users that can
> >>> > > > approve/deny ACL requests (older than 1 month) but have not done
> >>> > > > it
> >>> > > > yet (the number refers to the number of ACL pending).
> >>> > > > 
> >>> > > > I think that people should take care of the pending ACL they can
> >>> > > > approve/deny and actually approve or deny them ASAP.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Your email needs a "call to action" link, otherwise no one will know
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > what they are supposed to do about it.  In this case it's probably:
> >>> > >   https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acl/pending/
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > However I visited the above URL, logged in, and it says:
> >>> > >   Pending ACLs
> >>> > >   No pending ACLs for you
> >>> > 
> >>> > also there should be no action required from the owner for
> >>> 
> >>> "watchcommit"
> >>> 
> >>> > or "watchbugzilla" requests, looks as a bug in the conversion when
> >>> > deploying the recent pkgdb
> >>> 
> >>> Well, the recent pkgdb is already quite a bit old and it should
> >>> definitively
> >>> auto-accept the watch* ACLs.
> >>> Do you have a link so I could look at the package/history?
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Pierre
> >>> --
> >>> devel mailing list
> >>> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedo
> >>> raproject.org
> >> 
> >> --
> >> devel mailing list
> >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > 
> > --
> > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]