Co-maintainersip policy for Fedora Packages

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Roozbeh Pournader schrieb:
> On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 15:47 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> I read that as two maintainers (one primary, one co-maintainer) but thl
>>> would need to clarify.
>> Three in total for all supported dists [all would mean F(current),
>> F(current-1), F(devel) and EPEL] and two per release.
> Another question rises here. What if some package doesn't find enough
> maintainers? Will the owner be required to choose some people from the
> volunteers available? What if there isn't even enough volunteers?

See one of the other mails/the enhanced proposal.

>> Strongly agreed. Actually for *my* packages I consider (not more yet)
>> even a more free, wiki-style approach. E.g. something like "if you think
>> something should be fixed, feel free to fix it in cvs. But please leave
>> building the packages and major updates up to the maintainers"
> Hmmm. It seems that instead of package-based maintenance policies, we
> will be going to have mostly owner-based policies, that is each owner
> applying the same policies to all of his packages. This may mean that
> the recommendations on how to keep the info should be changed in some
> ways, like putting the information on the owner's wiki page, instead of
> the package's.

Hmmm, I think per package is the better approach.

> Also, we may want to have a HACKING file or something like that in the
> CVS repository, instead of putting the info in the wiki.

Still unsure. I still prefer the wiki a bit over CVS. Other opinions? Or
could we use the PackageDB for this sort of stuff, too?

CU
thl