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

Re: Missing packages owned by non-EPEL interested parties



On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:25:26PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> But what is done now if such a situation arises? Contact the package
> maintainer and ask for co-maintainership on EPEL? If he agrees what
> are the next steps, ask cvsadmin-members to branch and set ACLs
> proper? Can cvsadmin-members touch ACLs at all, or is there another
> entity involved?

Unless I am wrong, there are currently 2 possibilities to have
comaintainership:

* 'full comaintainership': added in a field of owners.list. 
See 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure
for the procedure. The comaintainer has full access to all the 
branches, and may even change te ACLs (unless I'm wrong).

* tacit comaintainership: agree with maintainer, and be comaintainer.
somebody should then ask for an EPEL branch (as in 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure
) and the primary package maintainer should adjust ACLs such that
the comaintainer can touch on the EPEL branches.

--
Pat


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