On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:17:20 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Actually the idea of strict ownership evades me, I would rather prefer a > >> more Wiki-like attitude (once you have a Fedora ID account and PGP key) - > >> "BE BOLD", "If in doubt, fix it". > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages > > > > +1 -- I'm all for that, too, but every time I proposed something like > > the above somewhere I got quickly shot down by other people. > > > > But the proper place for that IMHO is not the co-maintainers policy. > > It's IMHO the "when to touch other peoples packages" policy. When I > > wrote that I even tried to grant some "packaging specialists" access > > everywhere, but as I said: People did not like it and preferred the > > bugzilla way even for obvious fixes. > > > > I'm not sure where I stand here, on one hand, I like the idea of being > able to fix other peoples packages as bugzilla indeed sometimes is a > slow path. OTOH I don't like people touching some of my packages without > me being in the loop somehow. This differs from one package to the > other, some are quite straight forward, others however are not and are > easy to break. Take Ogre for example, a minor update from 1.2.3 to 1.2.4 > from upstream might seam harmless there, but upstream tends to break the > ABI every update! Some other maintainer trying to help is likely not to > know this and thus create problems, so I don't want other people > touching Ogre without asking me first. "Touching your packages" and "upgrading your packages" is not the same. Why, oh, why are breakage scenarios like that used as a main argument everytime there is a discussion like this? -- 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
