On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 04:36:24AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > I was under the impression, it's the perl-sig's intention to have > packages which loose its primary maintainer, to be "colaboratively" > maintained. It's at least how I remember the situation when JPO had > quit and had left 100s of packages behind. > > IIRC, back then, packages having had a co-maintainer had been > assigned to the 1st co-comaintainer or somebody having stood up to > voluneer filling the gap. Those remaining without maintainer were > assigned to "spot as placeholder", because the packagedb wasn't able > to cope with "maintainer == perl-sig". > I guess the packagedb situation hasn't sufficiently improved since then? > Correct. No one has spent any time to allow groups to be owners. This would be a significant rearchitecting so I haven't assigned it as an EasyFix task to anyone who has just arrived in infrastructure. Note that the perl-sig pseudo-user could own the packages if the perl-sig wants to continue maintaining them and doesn't want them orphaned. That works right now. What it wouldn't grant is commit rights to the packages. > Anyway, I just noticed the iburrell packages also are on your list. > IMO, these should likely followup the "cweyl treatment", because much > of perl would not be usable without them. > <nod> Someone could pick them up or (since we still have a list of which packages these are) I could assign them to someone in a placeholder capacity or as primary owner. cweyl had specifically asked that mmaslano be made a comaintainer of all his perl* packages earlier so that seemed like it wouldn't make waves if I set the ownership to prevent orphaning. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp2QckeOGku7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
