Bug 1496495

Summary:	Commencing non-responsive maintainer process.
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Steve Traylen <steve.traylen>
Component:	singularity	Assignee:	Dave Love <dave.love>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	bbockelm, dave.love, dwd
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-10-06 08:15:36 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1457856

Description Steve Traylen 2017-09-27 15:13:24 UTC

Hi,

Following this procedure.


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers

I am requesting some progress on #1457856 in particular.

Comment 1 Steve Traylen 2017-09-27 15:14:27 UTC

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457856

link to bug.

Comment 2 Brian Bockelman 2017-09-28 04:01:46 UTC

Thank you very much for starting this process Steve!

I would be happy to contribute to the maintenance, however possible.  I have put in requests to the current maintainer over the last few months but haven't been able to get a response.

Thanks again!

Comment 3 Dave Love 2017-10-03 16:11:24 UTC

[I appear to be missing Fedora notifications, but I don't think I'm the only one who can't make that work.]

I'm unclear what happens with joint maintainer requests these days, but I can't see anything in pagure, if that's the right place.

What do you want to do with maintenance?  I don't think it should just be pushed out as-is, and I haven't had a chance to go through the current version for at least the issues I found previously.

Why is a new version so important?  I'd assume it would be mostly relevant for EPEL, not Fedora, and it probably wouldn't satisfy the EPEL update policy.

Comment 4 Steve Traylen 2017-10-05 09:25:41 UTC

Thanks for the response.

In pagure you request access just via email or bugzilla currently.

To grant brian or me (stevetraylen) access it's 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb#How_do_I_give_a_user_commit_access_to_a_dist-git_repo.3F

Steve.

Comment 5 Dave Dykstra 2017-10-05 18:20:53 UTC

(In reply to Dave Love from comment #3)
> I don't think it should just be pushed out as-is, and I haven't had a chance
> to go through the current version for at least the issues I found previously.
>
> Why is a new version so important?  I'd assume it would be mostly relevant
> for EPEL, not Fedora, and it probably wouldn't satisfy the EPEL update
> policy.

Let's discuss these questions in ticket #1457856 where the update to 2.3.2 is requested.

Comment 6 Steve Traylen 2017-10-06 08:15:36 UTC

Thanks for the response closing this ticket.