On 05.12.2007 16:51, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:41:20 -0500 > Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Having just looked a bit closer and talked with Jeremy, here is what I >> think we can do. In general: looks good. But it's actually quite similar that was purposed in a older discussion not that many months ago but not further realized because then I was told that having a second group in FAS is not that easy to realize for this task. >> "cvsextras" as a FAS group becomes something like just 'cvspkgs'. >> Warren is already planning on doing this. Membership in this group >> gives you a couple things. >> >> 1) file level ACLs on the cvs server to >> write to the file system. Everybody has to have this in order for cvs >> to write out files on your behalf. >> >> 2) A grouping of all Fedora package maintainers. All maintainers >> would have to be in cvspkgs. >> >> We would then create a new group, cvsexperienced or some other name >> such as this. This group is the group that gets CVS ACLs to all >> modules that haven't opted out of this openness. This takes the place >> of what we have in pkgdb currently as cvsextras commit. Entry to this >> group should be relatively low barrier, but there is still a barrier >> between the fresh contributors and everybody elses packages. With this words it sounds to me like a bit to low barrier, but that depends on the exact definition. >> Finally we have the cvsadmin group who just has blanket access no >> matter what, and this doesn't have to change. >> >> With some relatively small changes this could be accomplished. The >> interesting discussion points are A) what is the criteria to get added >> to cvsexperienced? Obviously sponsors are automatically added, but >> there should be other ways to get in. IMHO is the barrier should be something like "invested quite some work into Fedora (something like: maintained 8 packages or did a lot of other work in Fedora-land and is around for more then 3 or 6 months)" and "showed that be knows the packaging guidelines"; IOW: can be trusted. But something like that is not easily written down. I think FESCo (or some other group; the sponsors maybe?) should just approve people if they trust them. And people should have a reasons to get that access; we should not simply hand it out accoring to some static rules.) >> B) who from the current members >> of cvsextras would we grandfather into cvsexperienced? I'd say only sponsors, people around for a long time (two years maybe?) or with a lot of packages (more then 12 maybe?) and are active. >> C) what is a >> better name for "cvsexperienced". cvstrusted ? >> D) when to make this happen. E) how to maintain that group, as people become inactive or leave over time again. > I forgot to mention. Membership in cvspkgs does not give you wide > access. In fact, the members of cvspkgs are not "considered" when > creating CVS ACLs. The owners/co-maintainers of packages are, and > members of cvsexperienced are (provided the package in question allows > for cvsexperienced commit access). > > This effectively keeps new packagers to only A) the packages they own, > and B) the packages the co-maintain with other people. CU knurd -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
