On 01/11/2012 09:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 01/11/2012 05:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
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.
So, pseudo-user wouldn't work well...
I don't see any reason why it would not.
perl-sig mails go to the perl mailing list, anybody interested can
listen and step in. It's what several persons who are subscribed to the
perl-list seem to have done for a long time - E.g. I do.
Also, in cases nobody steps up and takes action, you (who is subscribed
to the perl-list) could step up in any case.
I.e. to sum up: Actually nothing would change to you and nothing would
change many of the "perl-sig" maintainers.
Ralf
--
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
