On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 10:26:36AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Fabio Alessandro Locati > <fale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 03:34:58PM +0200, Helio Chissini de Castro wrote: > >> I have a strong opinion over this > >> > >> All the ACL's should be accepted, doesn't matter the level. > >> And why i think of this ? > >> > >> Two simple reasons: > >> - The packager abandoned the package, because several reasons, and then is > >> far away from Fedora systems for some time > >> - The packager is actively using Fedora, but seen not care to even properly > >> take care of his package, not in the minimal sense to deny the ACL, which > >> would be acceptable. > >> > >> In both cases, the package became hostage to someone that for sure aren't > >> caring much for the distro, unless prove me wrong. > > > > Hi, > > > > On one hand I agree with you, on the other hand I do think that > > sometimes pkgdb notifications are not so visible and therefore someone > > could inadvertly loose track of some notifications and with your > > proposal, this would trigger an auto-approval. > > The last time someone requested ACLs from one of my packages, I > received an email about it. So if they're not reading email about > their package, then that's a problem. Sometimes an email could get missplaced. I think that at least an (additional) weekly recap email should be sent (only to people with pending ACL approval). Best, Fale -- Fabio Alessandro Locati Red Hat - Senior Consultant PGP Fingerprint: E815 3C49 2A8D FD8B 1CBD BC85 FDB3 DF20 B2DC 9C1B
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
