On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:26:21PM +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > If this is implemented, the 'next' co-maintainer should become the
> > real maintainer after another 8 weeks non-commiting by the former
> > maintainer.
>
> I think this is another problem with pkgdb or Fedora. Why is there a
> maintainer ("owner"?) and co-maintainers, rather than just having all
> co-maintainers be equal?
If co-maintainers have all the same checkboxes as 'owner' then the only
difference is that the 'owner' will show up in some queries as the
primary contact for the package. Otherwise there's no difference. The
co-maintainers can approve other people for acls, etc.
> As people know, my default position is for inclusion: we should try to
> include as many packages in Fedora that we can, except where there is
> a legal or insuperable technical problem with that.
>
> So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more
> maintainers.
I disagree with the 0.
> If #maintainers == 0 then the package is either just sitting there (as
> long as there are no serious bugs), or is being best-effort maintained
> by provenpackagers, at least until that becomes a burden and only then
> should the package be dropped.
If some provenpackager want's to maintain it, why don't they take
ownership?
kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
