On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 05:02:39PM +0200, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > The packager group is currently used for a few things: > > - tracking purpose, it's one of our biggest groups and also one of the most active > > - members of the packager group can do official package review > > - members of the packager group can become maintainer of a package > > I believe it is also the group that makes packagers fulfil the > CLA/FPCA+1 criterion which enables certain Fedora services AFAIU. AFAIK > this includes the e-mail alias for @fedoraproject.org. Somehow it might > also include extra bugzilla privileges need to be able to re-open, > re-assign or close bugs (not sure here). > > > We could of course adjust pagure is such a way that it will enforce being member > > of the packager group to be allowed to be added to a project but this seems more > > pain than gain. > > (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) > > What exactly does "alowed to be added to a project mean". Does this > meant that they will get commit access to all branches of a project or > can they also become a package owner? Can they become the default bug > assignee for a project without being in the packager group? Technically yes to all of your questions here. Though, if only member of the packager group can do non-scratch builds and create bodhi updates then we would end up with a point of contact that does not have any power (outside of committing on dist-git), so I think this would be quickly found out. > > So I would like to ask if we are fine with stopping to require the membership of > > the packager group to contributors? > > > > I do not see the packager group disappearing entirely since it will still be > > needed for package reviews and we have given rel-eng tooling to check and enforce > > this on new package requests, but I think it makes sense to stop this requirement > > to commit on dist-git repos. > > If I understand this correctly, this would mean that there could be > maintainers for a package that would not be reachable via the > @fedoraproject.org alias? If this is correct it would make it harder to > reach everyone when sending notifications about packages depending on > orphaned packages as I use the @fedoraproject.org alias for this. People with commit access but not part of the packager group could indeed not be CLA+1, but you could argue that they aren't really maintainers since they also cannot do anything but committing to the git (no koji builds, no bodhi updates). > > What do you think? > > I believe it is a great idea to allow everyone to fill PRs but I do not > yet understand to the full package workflow when moving to just pagure > instead of pkgdb I must confess. I added my open questions about the > workflow to the wiki so the answers can be made available to everyone: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb#How_do_I_orphan_a_package.3F Orphaning a package would be just like in pkgdb, you would give the project to the `orphan` user. Pierre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
