On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 15:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Well, should we try to enforce co-maintainers in the longer term? E.g. a
rule "each package must have at least one primary maintainer and one
co-maintainer"?
That'll just make the barrier to addition higher.
I'd say we don't mandate it but make sure all the bits are there for it
to be encouraged :)
+1 to that.
I can't agree with mandating a co-maintainer for every package. I do,
however, certainly like the idea of the infrastructure to support
co-maintainership being in place. I used to maintain various packages
before they were added to Extras (by others, mind); that gives me
something of an advantage when working with that package. I'd be happy to
apply for co-maintainership for those packages.
As an aside, as I see more emails pour in on this subject, I'd like to
respond to Mike McGrath's "task force" suggestion: In a more broad sense,
I think that works, but if there's someone with a more active
knowledge/interest in the package, I feel they're a better candidate to be
tinkering with it. If there isn't, though, then the task force idea isn't
a bad one. But doesn't that kind of describe the Security Team?
Jima
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
