On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 15:47 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > I read that as two maintainers (one primary, one co-maintainer) but thl > > would need to clarify. > > Three in total for all supported dists [all would mean F(current), > F(current-1), F(devel) and EPEL] and two per release. Another question rises here. What if some package doesn't find enough maintainers? Will the owner be required to choose some people from the volunteers available? What if there isn't even enough volunteers? > Strongly agreed. Actually for *my* packages I consider (not more yet) > even a more free, wiki-style approach. E.g. something like "if you think > something should be fixed, feel free to fix it in cvs. But please leave > building the packages and major updates up to the maintainers" Hmmm. It seems that instead of package-based maintenance policies, we will be going to have mostly owner-based policies, that is each owner applying the same policies to all of his packages. This may mean that the recommendations on how to keep the info should be changed in some ways, like putting the information on the owner's wiki page, instead of the package's. Also, we may want to have a HACKING file or something like that in the CVS repository, instead of putting the info in the wiki. Roozbeh -- 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
