Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at
Sun Oct 15 20:38:29 UTC 2006

>>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at> writes:

AT> Is this the upcoming model of co-maintainers? I'd prefer the model
AT> Patrice assumes, e.g. a primary one and secondary co-maintainers
AT> that *should* coordinate their actions with the primary
AT> one.

I think it's foolish to attempt to impose that policy across every
package.  If the various maintainers of a particular package want to
make that agreement between each other, that's fine.  If the
maintainers of a different package don't want to have any kind of
primary maintainer, then that's fine to.

AT> Otherwise suddenly all contributors become co-maintainers of
AT> everything and we'll get trouble keeping it all in non-chaotic
AT> state.

And yet somehow we have Extras chugging along just fine with exactly
that rule, and the only thing to prevent such chaos is the various
agreements that maintainers make with each other.

 - J<

More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list