[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 14.08.2007 20:50, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 August 2007 11:57:35 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Sorry it was not clear to you.  the Fedora maintainer will become the 
> co-maintainer.  they EPEL maintainer will remain primary.  of course this can 
> be switched if the maintainers agree.

Could you please clarify the wording in the wiki then to make that more
obvious?

CU
knurd


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