On 05.01.2007 13:18, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 01:08:10PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 05.01.2007 12:57, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 05:50:20AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
I believe EPEL is open to contributors that currently have 5 or more
packages and/or sponsor status. There is no need to wait for Luke's
work.
However, one thing that contributors might want wait on is an updated
mock package with EPEL configs. I've got a bug opened to get that done
and just need to find some time.
What exactly does a contributor need to do to branch into which RHEL
branches? And where do the packages land in?
Dgilmore promised in yesterday meeting to
- send a mail that answers this sort of questions
- that he'll try to drive this whole effort a bit more to get it
flying - but I'm sure he'll be glad if people help. A real EPEL SIG that
meets now and then and works out the details and leads EPEL is IMHO overdue.
Well, I was very eager to help from the very beginning (I think my
whining got Karsten to setup the 108 list), but w/o any info I don't
have a handle to do anything.
The FESCo <-> "Packager community" communication is IMHO the problem. It
seems FESCo want contributors to participate in the FESCo meetings
and/or step up and simply do stuff they think Extras needs. But some
contributors seems to say "FESCo, here is a problem, please solve it"
and/or they don't even notice that FESCo needs help.
That FESCo's fault.
We need to improve this, suggestions welcomed. Two things I'm planing to
improve the situation:
- let somebody else do the job of the FESCo-chair after the next
election. Fresh blood, new ideas hopefully help. Maybe even earlier if
someone steps up from current FESCo -- not sure. Handling the big merge
with the current team might be more important ATM.
- maintain a public list of things were FESCo/Extras in general needs a
helping hand.
Perhaps it was wrong to move the discussion out of the 108 list,
because now noone really knows who is doing what where and what is
being discussed by which parties.
Might be part of the problem (others will say that more mailing lists
are the problem), but the real problem IMHO is: It lacked a real driver.
I tried to do that, but I'm buried with other work already and thus
tried to move it over to mmcgrath and dgilmore. They did a lot of work
for it, but they have a lot of other work to do already, too. :-/
CU
thl
--
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
