On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Robert Scheck <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, drago01 wrote: >> A maintainer[1] is (supposed to be) more that somebody with commit >> access to the package >> He/she deals with bugs, coordinate stuff with upstream, etc. > > [...] > >> Again I still think that the only problem that is to be solved here is >> not the "security issues" but that some people trying to block their >> packages for whatever reason. > > Ehm? Which things except dealing bugs, upstream stuff etc. has a maintainer > or have the co-maintainers to handle a non-maintainer could do? And which > reason do you see not to let changes always go over the desk of maintainer > or co-maintainers (which is simply disallowing provenpackager)? see below. > Four eyes see more than two. AFAIK the kernel people are reviewing all of > their changes and approve them various times before commiting them. Doing > this or similar things seems to be a quality enhancement to me (which comes > back to my original issue). Of course big changes should not be done without getting the maintainers agreement. But waiting for a maintainer to respond to a bug report for trivial stuff like "rebuild against foo" is not very productive. Also its easier to just tell a bug reporter (if he is a packager) "changes look good, go ahead and commit" That's how stuff worked now (also called "common sense"), do we really need guidelines and restrictions for *everything*? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
