On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:29:38 -0500 Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:58 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 14:58 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > This seems a reasonable compromise all together. I can be happy with > > > this for Fedora 9. Hopefully by the time 9 is let loose, we'll have > > > had at least one other full fledged secondary arch up and running and > > > proving that the method can work. > > > > I suspect this is going to work a whole lot better if I have commit > > access to anaconda, kudzu, rhpl, booty, etc. > > I'm just going to come right out and say that if Fedora as a project > starts dictating commit access to hosted "upstream" projects, that's a > quick way to kill the use of Fedora for hosting upstream projects. > Because that's not the way that commit access for projects should be > given. Ever. So not to nit-pick, but nobody was dictating commit access. David simply said it would be smoother if he had it. And that aside, it is often quite common for upstream projects to have architecture "maintainers" for common code bases. I don't see how the "Fedora hostedness" of this plays into it at all. An upstream is an upstream no matter where it's hosted. > And < a day of turnaround for the most recent one really isn't bad. > Also, there is a member of what is ostensibly the ppc team (pnasrat) who > does have commit access to most of the above. Having Paul help out would work, sure. Whether he's willing to do that I have no idea. (Though it would be awesome if so.) josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
