The right people to lead the effort on fixing bugs in udev are the udev maintainers.
If people did not wish to have the responsibility for leading the effort to fix bugs in udev, they had the option of not taking over the maintenance of udev.
I agree with ohazi, above, that the world would be a better place if the systemd people had availed themselves of that option.
(To be fair, it looks like this issue was fixed a few months later by someone who knew what they were doing. So the main lesson here may be something more like "@poettering should not be triaging udev bugs".)
I meant that I suspect @poettering was mistaken when he said the current maintainers didn't collectively have "the expertise and understanding to maintain this properly."
As far as I can make out, there was nothing particularly hardware-specific about the bug. The bug was that udev was assuming that there could be no more than one disk per SATA host node, which turns out not to be the case.
`udevadm info` output would have been enough to see what was going on, which I'm sure the reporter would have happily supplied.
That's... not what's happening at all? The issue is there _wasn't_ any of the right people around to claim ownership of the bug. It's not like someone in the know can't just look at the systemd bug tracker, it's all public. Like, I get what your complaint is, but at the end of the day, do you really care who's name is on the commit that fixes the bug? I usually don't, and most maintainers I know probably don't either -- they're usually happy to delegate to someone who's more knowledgeable in the problem area. If you have some other solution you'd like to suggest here then I'd love to hear it, let's move beyond the criticism and start thinking about solutions. And I don't even mean this as a solution in systemd, I mean this as a "helps anything that interacts with hardware and has bugs that could potentially be caused by hardware" solution.