On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:51:32AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 01/11/2012 09:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > >On 01/11/2012 05:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >>Note that the perl-sig pseudo-user could own the packages if the perl-sig > >>wants to continue maintaining them and doesn't want them orphaned. That > >>works right now. What it wouldn't grant is commit rights to the packages. > >> > >So, pseudo-user wouldn't work well... > I don't see any reason why it would not. > What about regular PGP key and password changes? Wouldn't perl-sig find guilty on next clean-up and removed of the ownership? > perl-sig mails go to the perl mailing list, anybody interested can listen > and step in. It's what several persons who are subscribed to the perl-list > seem to have done for a long time - E.g. I do. > Only the ones who are rights to commit. > I.e. to sum up: Actually nothing would change to you and nothing would > change many of the "perl-sig" maintainers. > There would be a problem that nobody would be personally responsible for a package. Also there could be problems with synchronisation between unassigned volunteering perl-sig members. I think it's better when each package is owned by a real person. -- Petr
Attachment:
pgpDTOLjfOA_R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
