Roozbeh Pournader schrieb: > 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? See one of the other mails/the enhanced proposal. >> 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. Hmmm, I think per package is the better approach. > 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. Still unsure. I still prefer the wiki a bit over CVS. Other opinions? Or could we use the PackageDB for this sort of stuff, 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
