On 6/17/07, Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just a question: How is it suppose to know if a package needs comaintainership? I guess it is telling which packages do not have comaintainers but my impression is that it is up to a maintainer to decide of he/she wants/needs comaintainers.
Now that we are post F7, I'd like to see a second round of discussion concerning the strawman proposal (i believe warren proposed) on how to get limited cvs access to upstream developers so I can pull upstream people in as co-maintainers on the packages for software they themselves develop, while I act as the responsible and trusted fedora contributor to push updates. I don't necessarily need other established fedora package monkeys to help me co-maintain. What I need is to find a way to get new people, specifically upstream developers enough cvs and build system access to help me deal with codebase issues instead of shallow fedora packaging adminstrata . The current sponsorship path is fine to evaluate people who will be acting as primary maintainers . But what I need is a way to bring upstream developers partway into the process to act as comaintainers on specific packages so that I can mentor them towards a fully sponsored contributor status if that is a direction they want to go. -jef -- 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
