@pingou Do any of these packages have co-maintainers?

@pingou Do any of these packages have co-maintainers?

I don't know

https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/distgit/retire_packagers.py

$ python retire_packagers.py kubo  # without --retire == dry run
kubo is watching rpms/golang-github-docopt-docopt-go
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Array-Utils
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Astro-FITS-CFITSIO
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Crypt-Rijndael
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-DBD-MariaDB
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-DBD-Mock
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-DateTime-Event-Recurrence
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-DateTime-Set
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-DateTimeX-Easy
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Digest-Perl-MD5
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Email-Valid
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Excel-Writer-XLSX
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-File-Path-Tiny
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-HTML-Table
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-HTML-Template-Pro
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-HTTP-Body
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Heap
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-MooseX-Aliases
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-MooseX-NonMoose
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Class
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-PDL
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-SQL-Abstract
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Statistics-Descriptive
kubo is maintainer of rpms/perl-Test-Spec

Apparently, @kubo is not the main admin of anything. Hence all of the packages have at least 1 co-maintainer (the main admin). Removing them from the packages should have no real effect other than more accurate metadata.

+1

Apparently, @kubo is not the main admin of anything. Hence all of the packages have at least 1 co-maintainer (the main admin). Removing them from the packages should have no real effect other than more accurate metadata.

And fixing the dist-git to bugzilla sync script for those packages :)
If the point of contact or CC list changed recently for any of these packages,
they were not reflected in bugzilla since the sync script will have failed due
to the current situation with kubo's account.

Sure. What I meant is that it doesn't really matter if there are co-maintainers or not, as nothing will end up orphaned because of this.

Could we have some traction on this?
@kubo has been receiving daily emails about this for months and we (infra) have
received twice as many (2 daily emails instead of 1). We like email just as much
as the next person but eh... :)

I can act on this if FESCo gives me the green light, or churchyard can do it, we
just need a +1/-1.

Thanks!

+1

+1

I gave my +1 almost 2 weeks ago.

If at least one FESCo member votes +1 and no one votes differently, the ticket is approved after three days.

Considering I am interested in comaintaining the package: no, the next step was to ask the maintainer in a week.

A week later FESCo posts a reminder in the ticket, @-mentioning the maintainer.

Anybody can ask that, it does not have to be me.

Anyway, here it is:

@kubo Are you still interested in maintaining Fedora packages?

Now, we wait another week. Assuming nobody votes negatively, the packager will be retired.

Considering I am interested in comaintaining the package: no, the next step was to ask the maintainer in a week.

A week later FESCo posts a reminder in the ticket, @-mentioning the maintainer.

Anybody can ask that, it does not have to be me.

Should I just include that line when I open the ticket then?

That would be one week too soon.

See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/#steps

It's a week now, so we should be able process this now, right?

Indeed.

APPROVED (+3,0,-0)

And done.

Confirmed on the infra side, thanks!

Announced: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FJSZDKP4CQ5A5NDIX7ON2NJ6O462GJWA/