On Wednesday 24 January 2007 6:40:54 pm seth vidal wrote: > Comaintainership - an alternate policy suggestion: > > 1. two(or more) people maintain the package > 2. they talk to each other if there is a conflict > 3. if there is a big conflict and they can't work it out, they talk to > fesco for resolution > 4. no more rules after this are needed > > > Seriously - why not just make it simple and have all other things > resolved like we would resolve normal conflicts? I agree. The reason why co-maintainership is not more used is because the tools don't help, just like programming Object Oriented code in C. Once the tools are in place I think that even without any strict policy in place we will see this as the common rule. What should be made clear is that this behaviour is encouraged. > Why all the overhead of rules early? The funny part is that in order to explain the reasons there was the need to use generalizations, and we all know how unfair generalizations can be. I agree with Bill in the reference to Red Hat, I think that we could in the extreme case to replace the reference by University guys (gals), there are lots of us with .edu (or similar) addresses and we all know how difficult we are to deal with... ;-) Similarly when I look to the people with the largest number of packages I don't think about complaints. :-) So, please let us keep it simple, just say that co-maintainership is encouraged, have the tools in place to deal with it. Pretty please. :-) > -sv -- José Abílio -- 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
