On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:01:16 +0100
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> However, I find coupling it to NewMaintainerContainment would void
> most of the benefits PackageACLOpening opens, because it ties access
> to a small group ("sponsors"). That said, I think it should be
> extended to a more general notion of "groups", e.g. SIGs,
> <LANG>-specialists, etc., such that groups on people can collaborate
> on groups of packages[1].
>
> Ralf
>
> [1] E.g. perl packages. The perl-SIG recently tried to add "perl-sig"
> as owner of a larger set of packages whose maintainer got AWOL, but
> we've been told that the packagedb doesn't support this. We ended up
> with dividing the dead packages between us, and "informally mutually
> granting" access. If the NewMaintainerContainment became effective, we
> probably would have to resort to explicitly adding us to all of our
> packages (I am talking about several 100s of packages).
Please don't think that new maintainer containment is a set in stone
proposal. In fact, one of the open questions is who gets added to the
set of folks who gain wide access. I want that group to be as big as
possible, just not inclusive of new packagers.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
