On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Indeed. That's the point. And then I don't want to force people, but > push a model where we collaborate with other distros when reviving dead > upstream. I really don't want to mandate something, but help those > facing such case with documentation and procedure to lower information > barrier and help coordinating with other distros in a case I think it > makes sense. Limit the details of suggestions to just contact the other maintainers and have a dialog. No recommendations on how to organize a new upstream at all. No matter how its done..its gonna be messy..and its gonna be case by case. Any policy 'suggestions' beyond talk to the other people in the same boat is going to come off as heavy handed and distro specific. Don't even both trying to micro-manage the discussion between the people who need to organize a new upstream. The most you can require of a Fedora contributor is that when they are put into this situation, they make a best effort to demonstrate that a defacto upstream location doesn't already exist ( for example, debain's codebase could be the defacto source repository that other distros are all basing their package junk on...which would make debian's codebase a defacto upstream) And once its clear that a defacto upstream doesn't exist then all you can ask them to do is hold a conversation with other maintainers. You can't make those people get along and all agree to follow a particular course of action... I wouldn't even go as far as suggestioning how that conversation should go, and what they talk about. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
