[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Robert Scheck <robert fedoraproject org> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>> On Thursday, 29 January 2009 at 21:51, Robert Scheck wrote:
>> > With which benefit, if we remove the right to package mantainers to forbid
>> > provenpackager commits except for some special canditates needing FESco? If
>> > everybody can touch anything, why a co-maintainer?
>> Well, even with provenpackagers, it's not like they will start committing
>> left and right into other people's packages. A co-maintainer is expected
>> to be the first person to step in when the other maintainer is unable to
>> do his job.
> I was thinking here about to skip the maintainer/co-maintainer stuff at
> all. Just one big bucket having everything in without different permissings
> or roles.

A maintainer[1] is (supposed to be) more that somebody with commit
access to the package
He/she deals with bugs, coordinate stuff with upstream, etc.

>> I'd also make it mandatory for provenpackagers to be members of at least
>> one SIG like KDE, Server, Games etc., i.e. ones that deal with certain
>> group of software packages so that their area of expertise is at least
>> somewhat defined.
> Interesting idea. But to which SIG would you assign me when looking to my
> wiki page, my interests and which packages I'm maintaining? Or do I need to
> found my own SIG for that then? I don't need to be a provenpackager, but I
> am also playing theoretical scenarios.

Well being in some random SIG does not prove anything.

Again I still think that the only problem that is to be solved here is
not the "security issues" but that some people trying to block their
packages for whatever reason.

1: If we want maintainers and not "package monkeys"

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]