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

Re: Meeting summary/notes from today's EPEL meeting 2010-02-12

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 02:29:48PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:19:20 +0100
> Till Maas <opensource till name> wrote:

> > Also the "Getting a Fedora package in EPEL"[0] procedure is not in
> > sync with what CVS admins require, as they might require a
> > confirmation that a maintainer has been asked:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c15
> > But this is not what the procedure describes.
> > 
> > [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
> I can add clarification there. Basically he was just asking: "have you
> talked to the Fedora maintainer about maintaining this in EPEL". 
> The answer could just have been "yes, I have". 

Are you sure? Because I believe I told him in IRC that the gitolite
maintainer asked the perl-Text-Markdown maintainer via e-mail, because
the gitolite maintainer wrote this in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548324#c20, which I referred
to in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c11

Also on IRC the CVS admin said something that the perl-Text-Markdown
maintainer required that he acked all EL branch requests, before they
would be performed. Hey also used this in

Nevertheless, if there was only some miscommunication and it still will
be enough to just ask the maintainer and mention this on a branch
request to get the branch for EPEL done, then everything is fine.


Attachment: pgpXYJsNKXuya.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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