On Tuesday 04 December 2007, Jeremy Katz 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. we should not mandate access to upstream ever. that is up to the upstream to decide. regardless of where upstream is > > > > Actually, we've spoken often of "arch teams" having commit access to > > _all_ packages. Is that feasible? > > There's a very large difference between "committing to packages" and > "committing to upstream". We don't have a great way of doing the "arch > maintainers can commit to any package", but since we're not talking > about huge numbers of arch teams, we could probably go with the quick > answer (just adding people to cvsadmin) we have a fedora-sparc group to ensure that sparc team members have access to all of cvs we should setup fedora-ppc fedora-arm fedora-alpha fedora-ia64 and the rest when they come to the party. Dennis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
