On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:35:18AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 14. 09. 20 v 10:11 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:50:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Reading this proposal and with the EPEL8 experience, where there was not > >> even wiki page, where I could state that I don't care about EPEL and I > >> had to reply into every BZ independently, wouldn't it make sense to move > >> EPEL into its own dist-git namespace? > >> > >> I guess that in the CVS days, having EPEL branch was fine. During PkgDB > >> days, where we could assign maintainer to each branch, it was still > >> fine. But since we lost this ability, isn't it time to rethink the > >> setup? > > We have the ability back, see the answers from Neal Gompa. > > > Well, yes, right. But apparently, it is not fully working. E.g. looking > at Ruby [1], it says I am EPEL maintainer while there is certainly not > EPEL branch. Also, there might be EPEL maintainer (actually Pagure lists > just BZ assignee), but I am not sure if they are listed between > "members" or not. I cannot set my preferred default. So there is still > lot to desire. You're speaking about the bugzilla overrides, that in practice are entirely separated from granting access to the epel* branches to someone. If you go on the project's settings, click to add an user or group, you'll see the "collaborator" access level with which you can give someone commit access on one or more branches (comma separated or using a pattern, for example epel*). Pierre _______________________________________________ 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
