Co-maintainersip policy for Fedora Packages
Hans de Goede
j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Thu Jan 25 07:21:29 UTC 2007
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 January 2007 14:08, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> All packages in Fedora Extras shall normally be maintained by a group of
>> maintainers. Each package normally should have at least three
>> maintainers in total. There is one primary maintainer and a primary
>> maintainer per distribution release (both often will be identical); he
>> should have at least one co-maintainer per release.
>
> This feels like we're dictating how people should manage their packages. Why
> should EVERY package have more than one maintainer? There are some pretty
> simple packages out there, does it really need 3? Do we really want to tell
> everybody that we don't trust just them, we need to trust 3 of them? Why is
> this necessary?
>
+1, JK words the major part of my issues with this proposal well:
"dictating how people should manage their packages" I don't like to be
dictated, I don't like it at all!
Also I find it funny that you (THL) first say:
"Well, my proposal is not that much more complicated:"
And then need a couple of very dense and hard to read paragraphs like
the one quoted by JK above to explain your policy.
>> Maintainers should hand over packages to
>> co-maintainers when they have lots of packages to improve the quality,
>> share the load and get people involved.
>
> again, dictating. You're saying that just because you own more than a few
> packages, you're automatically lowering the quality of those packages, or you
> automatically can't handle the load. This is a bad and very unfriendly
> assumption to make.
>
+1 (But I made that clear already)
Regards,
Hans
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list