[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RFC: EPEL branching if Fedora maintainer does not react




On 06.08.2007 17:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 01.08.2007 18:59, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> [...]
>> If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both 
>> people will become co-maintainers for EPEL.  (Of course co-maintainership can 
>> be extended to Fedora)
> 
> If I understand the last para correctly we have two maintainers one the
> same level -- e.g. no primary per-release maintainer? That's not in line
> with the co-maintainership policy, which makes sure there is always one
> person as per-release primary maintainer which is responsible in the end
> for the packages (and has the last word in case of disputes). I prefer
> such a scheme, because two people co-maintaining a package in the end
> could quickly lead to situation where each other thought the other one
> will take care of the package.
> 
> So: -1 for this. I'm all for something like that as last para:
> 
> If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, then he
> and the EPEL maintainer should discuss which one takes care of the
> package. One should become primary per release maintainer, which is kind
> of responsible for the package in that release; the other should become
> co-maintainer; how those two share the work is up to them.

Ping -- I got no reactions on this.

To let me rephrase: with the "Then both people will become
co-maintainers for EPEL." it's afaics unclear who's the primary
per-release maintainer and who's the co-maintainer in the end. That's
not in line with the co-maintainership policy from Fedora, which
requests there is a per-release (release=EPEL4 and EPEL5 in this case)
maintainer.

Cu
knurd


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]