On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 18:46 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 01.06.2006, 19:26 +0300 schrieb Ville Skyttä: > > This topic surfaces every now and then, often to be quickly countered > > with "what do you need, just do it", which to my knowledge has not been > > really answered. Come on, what is there really to "drive forward" in > > this? > > Mainly this (or parts of it; or parts now, others later): (I don't feel like reading the linked messages right now, so I'll throw some off-the-cuff solutions.) > - Allow new contributors to start as Co-Maintainers: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-May/msg00506.html Existing maintainer proxies the newcomer's commits for a while, then starts to sponsor him at which point the newcomer gets commit access, then proceed as usual. > - Proposal from Patrice with a lot of good ideas: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-April/msg00962.html Much too long for me to read now. > - a way to mark "Maintainer foo works on FC5 and devel, Maintainer bar > on FC3 and FC4" in owners.list Assuming this is only for being auto-Cc'd/assigned in Bugzilla for new reports: how many packages are there that receive that many bug reports that it wouldn't work to just be Cc'd/assigned on all of them, even if one is maintaining only specific branch(es)? Why wouldn't someone who maintains a package only for a subset of branches be insterested in hearing about all bug reports on the package? > - A proper policy in the wiki. Link to this post :) > [about CVS ACLs:] Sounds really good to me. BTW, I'd say sponsors should also get access > everywhere. But the scripts need to be written and somebody has to do > the work. And with change to another scm looming, the number of folks potentially interested in spending time with that is rapidly approaching zero -> back to square one, I'm afraid... -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
