#245 Revisiting our package request template
Closed: Nothing to do by carlwgeorge. Opened by salimma.

We have a standardized way of requesting packages: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/#file_a_bug

but it seems there are still corner cases, e.g.

  • https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236290 - maintainer is willing to grant access, but did not notice that the details of who needs access is already provided. the bug assignee is then set to nobody

  • https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236292 - maintainer granted access then set the bug assignee to nobody

Perhaps using bullet points to surface who needs to be added to the ACL (optional if the maintainer is willing to branch, required if the maintainer is not willing to branch) would make the information easier to parse?

Also: should we provide next steps e.g. "if you opt to give the requester access, please set the bug status to ASSIGNED and assign it to them after updating the ACL" ?


Metadata Update from @salimma:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

Metadata Update from @tdawson:
- Issue untagged with: meeting

I think if we add every corner case, we are going to make our instructions too complicated.

  • Assigning it to nobody ... I don't see a problem with that. Usually they don't re-assign it at all. If you just said you were willing to maintain the bug, then maintain it. Go ahead and "take" the bug.

  • The second case. The package maintainer clearly didn't read all of the original bug. I don't think adding even more text to the bug is going to get them to read it better. I think what you did was the correct step, re-telling them what they needed to do.

Metadata Update from @carlwgeorge:
- Issue close_status updated to: Nothing to do
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

This issue has been migrated to Fedora Forge:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/epel/steering/issues/245

Please continue any further discussion there.

Metadata