On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 2:04 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 09:53:17AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 18. 12. 24 v 1:38 dop. maxwell--- via devel-announce napsal(a): > > > The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they > > > are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure > > > that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life > > > > I see lots of packages that are orphaned, but have one or more > > co-maintainer. Sometimes they may quickly take the package, sometimes they > > may be on holidays. > > > > Would you object if promote a co-maintainer to main maintainer for orphaned packages and make it a rule? > > Broadly it is a good idea, but with impl questions due to Pagure. > > IIUC Pagure only allows for 1 "main admin" (owner). What would you suggest > if there are currently 2 (or more) "admin"s (co-maintainers). Arbitrarily > pick 1 of the many to promote? Or do nothing and let them choose ? > > This is a problem I would hope our Pagure replacement will trivially fix > for us, on the dist-git side at least. Other forges don't typically have > a distinction between a single "main admin" and other "admins". Repos are > "owned" by the collective of all admins who are equal peers. So there's > no problem until the very last admin wants to leave. > One thing I hope we never do is allow something to be principally owned by groups as a rule. As a general practice, "groups" are bad at being responsible for packages when the chips are down. It is difficult to figure out if a package is being administered. Having a singular point of contact in that scenario is beneficial, and I would prefer we maintain that going forward in any new system. Will we? I don't know. People have been trying to make loopholes for this for years anyway, and every loophole implementation sucks in their own way. Just look at all the "foo-maint" accounts that represent some team for a package. Ultimately those accounts are useless for being responsible for the package and creates issues for us over the long-term as we cannot figure out if there's anyone behind a package in the first place. Pagure had the distinction because our policy needed it, and I don't particularly disagree with that need. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
