On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:55:26PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On 12/07/2010 11:52 AM, Till Maas wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:20:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a > >> question. > >> > >> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per > >> Fedora branch? I've seen some argument for EPEL vs Fedora, but is there > >> real value in ACLs for f13, f14, devel, etc...? > > > > There should be at least a distinction between EOL releases and non EOL > > releases, e.g. someone having only commit access for F12 must not have > > commit access for F13+ currently, because usually only ownership / ACLs > > for current Fedora releases are up to date in PackageDB. > > I don't think the above really means we need different ACLs per branch, > just that if we did flatten then we need to flatten them as a union of > current active branches and not any EOL data. I agree. > > And there > > should still be a distinction in PackageDB for different > > (co)maintainer for different Fedora releases. > > For what reason? To properly display the state of the package in PackageDB. E.g. if a package has different owners in different releases, it is more clear who is responsible. E.g. sometimes packages are faded out from Fedora and therefore orphaned in devel, but not in the stable releases. If there is only one Owner for all Fedora releases, this cannot be modeled. It might also happen that a package was orphaned for all releases but is only unorphaned for newer ones like devel. And I guess it might also happen that maintainership is passed for packages only for e.g. devel but not the stable releases from one maintainer to another. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpSIlpL86Vnd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
