On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 04:10:08PM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:54:07PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote: > > On 2020-03-25 17:33, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > [Branching] removes community maintainer from the conversation about what > > > downstream is doing. While we want to give community member a voice in > > > that conversation. > > > > I fear that this proposal *forces* the community member to participate in > > the discussion. That is a very different thing than giving them a voice. > > > That reminds me that even if all the ELN changes were pushed into dedicated > branch, the package owner would have to grant commit access to the packagers > who is going to maintain the ELN branch. This how Pagure works. > > We has already observed this issue with EPEL branches where someone else wants > to maintain an EPEL package in the EPEL branch but cannot because the package > owner in Fedora does not respond to grant him the commit access to that > package. Yep, that happens and is very frustrating to people blocked by this. Most of the time it's the usual story of people being too busy, but a contributing factor is that there's no per-branch access — in pagure it's all or nothing — so one has too trust the new co-maintainer fully. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
