Bug 1824036

Summary: Non-responsive maintainer check for pwouters
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Lumír Balhar <lbalhar>
Component: python-dnsAssignee: Paul Wouters <pwouters>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: aviso, louiz, mhroncok, pspacek, pwouters
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-04-15 20:00:42 UTC Type: ---
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: 1764096, 1801247, 1802998, 1849341    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Lumír Balhar 2020-04-15 06:36:51 UTC
This bug is part of the non-responsive maintainer procedure for pwouters, following https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/.

Please respond if you are still active in Fedora and want to maintain python-dns.

Comment 1 Lumír Balhar 2020-04-15 06:38:15 UTC
I know that you actively work on other packages and I am willing to help you with python-dns so feel free to give me that package if you don't have time to maintain it.

Comment 2 Avram Lubkin 2020-04-15 15:50:17 UTC
What are you looking for a response on? I don't see any bugs or comments from you for this package and no pull requests.

Comment 3 Paul Wouters 2020-04-15 20:00:42 UTC
I'm alive still.

I see two bugs for python-dns. rhbz#1801247 and rhbz#1802998

I fired of a new build of the package.

I'm not sure how you tried to reach me before to conclude that I am unreachable ? But I think the non-responsive maintainer approach was a bit over the top :)

Comment 4 Lumír Balhar 2020-04-16 05:40:59 UTC
Believe me, there is no bad intention in this bug. I also didn't follow the nonresponsive maintainer policy completely and just started with this bug. I know that you are active so the purpose is to start a discussion.

BTW, I sent you an email about python-dns 10 days ago.

There are three bugs for python-dns, all in NEW state assigned to you:

- bz#1801247 - waiting for a reply since 2020-02-27 (with needinfo flag)
- bz#1802998 - created 2020-02-14 with some info from Petr Špaček a week ago
- bz#1764096 - this one can be closed IMHO

And my offer is still on the table - I maintain python-dns in RHEL and the switch of the crypto libraries is motivated by some RHEL components so I can help you with the maintenance.

Comment 5 Miro Hrončok 2020-04-16 08:54:16 UTC
> I'm not sure how you tried to reach me before to conclude that I am unreachable ?

Paul, I've e-mailed you about bz1801247 almost 3 weeks ago and there was no response.
Lumír then e-mailed you again, but there was no repsonse.

We NEEDINFO you in bugzillas, but there was no response. The non-responsive maintainer approach was the next best thing for us to try. Starting a discussion on maintainer responsiveness is in no way an invasive act. It is communication.


As we maintain the package in RHEL, it is entailment to us that the Fedora package is actively maintained and Lumír is willing to help with that.

Comment 6 Miro Hrončok 2020-04-16 08:59:44 UTC
> it is entailment to us

This should have been: it is essential to us

Comment 7 Paul Wouters 2020-04-16 14:08:35 UTC
I added Lumir as package admin.

Comment 8 Miro Hrončok 2020-04-16 14:33:38 UTC
Thanks Paul.