What would be neutral?
The Fedora maintainer’s lack towards feedback ?
I guess as TL2 he cant change title alias just restricted. We as TL4 might have to help him.
1 Like
Ah, sorry about that.
There’s the mailing list that ilikelinux posted about, and there’s the channel on Matrix (devel in the Fedora homesever):
4 Likes
I wonder if the line “Bug URL” in the rpm -qi listing should perhaps reflect that preference.
2 Likes
Yeh, it certainly should (although, I think this is automatically generated during the build process). I’m not sure if the notification they’re discussing is on Bugzilla yet either—I haven’t had a chance to check. Certainly lots that can be improved.
1 Like
In most cases response to bugs that I submitted is “Status: Closed EOL”. Following is an example:
I could have filed separate bug reports for Fedora 40 and 41 but to avoid uneccesary clutter, I clearly indicated that the problem occurs in both releases. One might conclude that the bug report was NEVER read by a human.
2 Likes
Fsarchiver looks unmaintained. No real human commits to it in a while. I reckon it’s only in the repos because it continues to somehow build and so hasnt been retired by automation (automation retires each release if they fail to build or install).
The maintainer doesnt seem to have any activity recently either:
We do remove inactive package maintainers, but i cant find the process for this at the moment (am on my phone).
Does 0.8.7 function, I just closed the merge request for it.
It was too old to merge due to conflicts and other issues.
2 Likes
Yes, I saw that situation too—forgot to include it in this post. But since I mainly file issues against the Rawhide branch, I haven’t personally encountered this problem yet.
@ernie-07, if it’s your ticket, you can change the version once you’ve confirmed it reproduces in f41 too, to prevent it being closed. That’s what the EOL closure notice is for.
1 Like
Issue etiquette and expectations around handling is one of those very hard things for the wider ecosystem to get right.
But looking at the comments on the issue referenced, it seems we have automation (I hope its automation and that isn’t Aoife writing manually) that provides a more humanized discussion of next steps for both the maintainer and the reporter when something is closed EOL. I hope as the reporter you feel those additional comments help make it clearer as to why it was closed EOL and corrective steps.
It will be interesting how the bugzilla fields are mapped over once we sunset bugzilla for a different issue tracker. If we can adapt the fedora version metadata from a field with a single value to a set of labels we might be able to avoid some of the clumsiness around handling/filter multiple version impact context for issues and avoid unncessary closures like this.
Unfortunately sometimes processes we build up are more about workarounds for the tooling and not an expression of intent on how we’d like to engage with contributors.
-jef
3 Likes
English is a second language for many Fedora users, so extra care in needed to ensure everyone understands what you want to convey. Forum posts should stick to objective facts. Using the term “attitude” addresses state of mind – something that requires a two-way interaction to establish and is often not reproducible.
I’m not a native English speaker either, so I don’t know if there’s a better way to express it. Besides, I also explained later that the maintainer may not have a “negative attitude” themselves, but the objective outcome made me feel that way. Arguing over wording is meaningless — I don’t want to continue debating this pointless topic.
1 Like