Co-maintainersip policy for Fedora Packages

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:17:20 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:

> >> Actually the idea of strict ownership evades me, I would rather prefer a 
> >> more Wiki-like attitude (once you have a Fedora ID account and PGP key) - 
> >> "BE BOLD", "If in doubt, fix it".
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages
> > 
> > +1 -- I'm all for that, too, but every time I proposed something like
> > the above somewhere I got quickly shot down by other people.
> > 
> > But the proper place for that IMHO is not the co-maintainers policy.
> > It's IMHO the "when to touch other peoples packages" policy. When I
> > wrote that I even tried to grant some "packaging specialists" access
> > everywhere, but as I said: People did not like it and preferred the
> > bugzilla way even for obvious fixes.
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure where I stand here, on one hand, I like the idea of being 
> able to fix other peoples packages as bugzilla indeed sometimes is a 
> slow path. OTOH I don't like people touching some of my packages without 
> me being in the loop somehow. This differs from one package to the 
> other, some are quite straight forward, others however are not and are 
> easy to break. Take Ogre for example, a minor update from 1.2.3 to 1.2.4 
> from upstream might seam harmless there, but upstream tends to break the 
> ABI every update! Some other maintainer trying to help is likely not to 
> know this and thus create problems, so I don't want other people 
> touching Ogre without asking me first.

"Touching your packages" and "upgrading your packages" is not the same.
Why, oh, why are breakage scenarios like that used as a main argument
everytime there is a discussion like this?