On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 03:18 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd also > make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a problem. You see a > problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the package has an active maintainer > or not? I think there's a reasonable middle ground here. Mandriva has a very open ACL policy. Anyone with commit access to a repository has commit access to every package in that repository, so any MDV maintainer can change any package in contrib, and anyone who maintains a package in main - which, practically speaking, is a lot of people including many non-staff - can change any package in main. There's a very small list of restricted packages to which this doesn't apply; I think that's pretty much just kernel and glibc or something very minimal like that. In practice, packages still have maintainers who are recognized for practical reasons and generally you would check with the listed maintainer of a package before making a change to it. (But, hey, if they don't reply in a day or two, it's fair game!) This generally works out pretty well, and helps out with the problem of having quite a small set of maintainers for an extremely large set of packages. I was often in the situation where I happened to notice a small issue with 'someone else's' package and could just go ahead and fix it, instead of having to go through the bureaucracy of filing a bug report and waiting for them to do it. It's rarely the case that someone makes a really stupid change and causes friction. I'd say the system works more often than it doesn't, and it'd probably be good for Fedora too to - as Dave proposes - explicitly _not_ have a concept of ownership, and be more liberal about non-maintainers touching packages. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
