>>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: AT> Is this the upcoming model of co-maintainers? I'd prefer the model AT> Patrice assumes, e.g. a primary one and secondary co-maintainers AT> that *should* coordinate their actions with the primary AT> one. I think it's foolish to attempt to impose that policy across every package. If the various maintainers of a particular package want to make that agreement between each other, that's fine. If the maintainers of a different package don't want to have any kind of primary maintainer, then that's fine to. AT> Otherwise suddenly all contributors become co-maintainers of AT> everything and we'll get trouble keeping it all in non-chaotic AT> state. And yet somehow we have Extras chugging along just fine with exactly that rule, and the only thing to prevent such chaos is the various agreements that maintainers make with each other. - J< -- 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
