On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:10 PM Robbie Harwood <rharwood@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Michel Alexandre Salim <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches and > > admin access to packages if there are no response from package > > maintainers for a set period (3 days? 1 week?) > > * whether it should be full admin access or whether such access > > should be scoped to epel* branches can be discussed. Full admin would > > make it possible to adjust the spec in Rawhide to be more EPEL > > friendly, for example > > Unless I've missed something, we still don't have per-branch ACLs in > dist-git. > > I don't think it's okay to force maintainers to give you admin or commit > to their packages just because you want them in EPEL. > > (I'm also not one of the kind of people who really like having one spec > file for all versions of the package, but I know others disagree with me > on this. Certainly if hypothetically I didn't want to maintain an EPEL > package I wouldn't want its logic /also/ foisted on me in rawhide.) > This does sound a bit over-the-top as far as permissions go. As Robbie said, some people/groups don't like having all sorts of conditions in their spec files. Having a SIG being able to put in, and change, %if statements in Rawhide spec files whenever they want is not a good situation. If they want to open pull requests, for those changes, fine. But giving them permissions to put them in with no oversite, I don't like. Do we have any idea on the timeframe of having per-branch ACLs in dist-git? Troy _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
