Taking ownership of gtkterm.

Michael Thomas wart at kobold.org
Mon Apr 3 21:14:14 UTC 2006

Hans de Goede wrote:
> Dan Horák wrote:
>> Hans de Goede píše v Pá 31. 03. 2006 v 22:27 +0200:
>>> Hi,
>>> About 24 hours ago I've asked if there was any objection if I would
>>> pickup gtkterm, no one objected so I'm taking it. I now this is a bit
>>> quick, but I took a look and have a new version ready so this time is
>>> as good as any.
>> As I see in the build reports, gtkterm is built for FC5 and devel. Is it
>> possible to built it also for FC4?
> Its already build for FC-4, but assume you mean build the latest
> version. Thats not exactly my habbit (I need to think about howto handle
> this* one of these days). But I've synced FC-4 with 5 and devel and
> requested a build for you :)
> Regards,
> Hans
> * This = When doing (minor?) updates to a newer FE-release and/or devel
>   do I also push this for older FE releases. I believe this is what most
>   others do maybe we need to make this policy for minor updates.

IMO, it's up to the maintainer whether they want to push updates to
older releases.  Ideally these updates would be validated on the older
releases before being pushed, and not all maintainers have the resources
to test on all releases and architectures.  If the maintainer can find
someone with access to the other releases/architectures who is willing
to validate an update then that will make the job easier.

If we were to have a written policy, I would recommend this:

"Maintainers are only required to push updates to devel.  The decision
to backport updates to other branches is left to the maintainer."

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060403/420e9932/attachment.bin>

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list