On 05.12.2007 13:02, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 17:10 -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> I think open by default is reasonable. > I agree. I disagree for packages that have at least one co-maintainer. >> For those packages that want tighter control perhaps "Private >> Commits" would be good wording. > It would be nice if you also needed to give a _good_ reason for making > it private. Perhaps even a reason which is approved by FESCo in advance. "I fear that a just sponsored contributer puts something bad in one of my packages" and "the CTRL+C trick in CVS still works, thus I as maintainer might not even get a mail if someone changes my package(¹)" are the reasons why I excluded cvsextras for those of my packages that have co-maintainers. OTOH I think we IMHO should have a group in FAS called something like "experienced maintainers" with sponsors and long term contributers that gets access everywhere; I trust those way more then a just-sponsored contributer that came out of the blue. CU knurd (¹) -- not to mention that we are all AFK now and then for a few days -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
