Fedora account

[Warren Togami]

Fredrik Tolf wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 15:47 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> 
>>Fredrik Tolf wrote:
>>
>>>As may be clear from the above, I'm not really particularly interested
>>>in having CVS access or being a maintainer, but rather I'm really just
>>>interested in developing and distributing icmpdn -- I've merely assumed
>>>that it is my responsibility for being able to have a package in FE,
>>>I'd. If that is not true, I'd appreciate a heads-up before I delve any
>>>deeper into this. Don't get me wrong, though, I'll happily assume the
>>>responsibility if indeed it is necessary.
>>>
>>>In contrast, in the Gentoo portage system, you just submit an ebuild to
>>>their bugzilla, and they make sure to get it into portage if it is
>>>approved. It's a lot less responsibility for the contributors, but I'm
>>>sure it's a lot more work for the Gentoo maintainers as well, and thus I
>>>more than well understand if this is not an option in FE. However, this
>>>entire process, necessary or not, is quite a threshold for people like
>>>me who just want to get a package into FE.
>>>
>>
>>This is OK, in this case please find one of the Fedora Extras members to 
>>simply handle your Bugzilla requests to get changes into the repository 
>>on your behalf.  Perhaps Oliver Falk can do it?
> 
> 
> Sure, I can more than well do that, but isn't that more work for all
> parties involved? I don't know exactly what arrangement you had in mind,
> so I may misunderstand, but wouldn't it be far easier to just let anyone
> handle Bugzilla requests, rather than assigning it to a certain person?

I was under the impression that you had rejected the idea of going 
through our normal process as being too complicated.  In such cases (and 
others where the contributor is unable to sign the CLA for legal 
reasons) it is possible for an existing Extras maintainer to act as 
proxy for you.  We would prefer however that you want to maintain your 
own package.

> 
> Either way, is this truly OK with you? I would still feel rather bad if
> I received special treatment. As I mentioned previously, I will be happy
> to shoulder the responsibility of reading docs and having CVS access if
> it really is the normal. My main point was that it seems to me like a
> rather strange procedure to have *every* contributor sign agreements and
> have CVS access, instead of letting a well-known, smaller group of devs
> have CVS access. I'm getting the feeling that I'm missing something.
> 

I was under the mistaken impression that you had no intention of reading 
the guidelines.  It is indeed the norm for a package maintainer to read 
the docs, become sponsored, sign the CLA, and gain CVS access.  As long 
as you are willing to follow the guidelines and you agree to touch only 
packages owned by you, then having CVS access is no problem.

Under those conditions I am willing to sponsor you.  Please request 
cvsextras access again at this point.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com