Ralf Corsepius schrieb: > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 15:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> seth vidal schrieb: >>>>> You also have the problem of folks being on holiday. It's not unusual in >>>>> the UK for people to vanish for 2 - 3 weeks. >>>> So what? While on vacation, one of your packages may need the attention. >>>> It's best to have co-maintainers. >>> +1 for co-maintainers. >> Well, should we try to enforce co-maintainers in the longer term? > Enforce? ... encourage, yes. Yeah, that's probably better. But we have support for that for some time now but it's rarely used afaics :-/ >> E.g. a >> rule "each package must have at least one primary maintainer and one >> co-maintainer"? > I am strongly opposed to this. It would be counterproductive. > > What we need is teams, dealing with certain tasks (e.g. systematic > packaging bugs, x86_64 portability issues, security), Agreed. > not "multiple > owners", fighting for details. That's why I (or this idea that was posted to the list some month ago iirc) mentioned "primary" maintainer. Cu thl -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
