On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:24:51PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> writes: > > PD> After some thinking and looking at some packages, I came to the > PD> conclusion that having upstream as primary maintainer in fedora > PD> should be avoided if possible. > > I think you've made a distinction between "primary" and other > maintainers that does not exist. All maintainers get access. Does it > really matter who submits the package for review, or which addresses > appear where in owners.list? Does the new package database even > attempt to prioritize owners? Is this the upcoming model of co-maintainers? I'd prefer the model Patrice assumes, e.g. a primary one and secondary co-maintainers that *should* coordinate their actions with the primary one. Otherwise suddenly all contributors become co-maintainers of everything and we'll get trouble keeping it all in non-chaotic state. To get back to upstream vs fedora experts maintership: Assuming the co-maintainership model would be indeed hierarchical, I agree with Patrice, better to have someone knowing the details in fedora doing the packaging (in consulting with upstream), than having the package experts trying to teach upstream how to package. I guess before considering the relationship of upstream and package maintainers closer one would need to see what the real model of co-maintainership will look like. If this has already been decided on, is there some pointer to wiki/mail that explains it? Thanks! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpCT2aQtYtmr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
