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

Re: Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009



On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako redhat com> wrote:
> Robert Scheck wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Brian Pepple wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This is all a moot point now though, since a couple of weeks ago FESCo
>>> approved a proposal to reset the initial seeding of the provenpackager
>>> group with Packaging Sponsors, and Jesse has made a proposal(1) on
>>> guidelines for approving someone to the provenpackager group.
>>>
>>>     1.
>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg01573.html
>>>
>>
>> Again, Jesse's proposal still keeps the same issues, just puts up new
>> guidelines and enforces nothing. Provenpackager is to critical to just
>> handle it just using guidelines and by a single provenpackage sponsor.
>> The approval of multiple (many) sponsors is needed before a packager
>> can get a provenpackage one - and this is what my proposal is about...
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>  Robert
>>
>>
>
> As everyone is so afraid of the damage provenpackager can do I want to
> propose something else:
> Provide a possibility for maintainers to open their package for ***EVERY***
> packager. I would love to do this.  And do you know why?
> Because I want to see some community growing and people trying to fix things
> even if they DO mistakes. How can someone learn if he didn't try to do it?
> I would prefer if someone fix 3 things and break one because I will have to
> fix only 1 thing not 3 :). And after pointing the problem to the author it
> won't happen again ( I believe).
> P.S. Please don't tell me that I don't care for this packages because I'm
> upstream author for this packages and I invested my free time in them before
> started at Red Hat.
>
> Alexander Kurtakov

Did it ever happen that a "provenpackager" or any packager in the days
of open ACLs cause any real damage to packages (not owned by him)?
I am not aware of any such cases, it seems to me that we are trying to
solve a non existing problem.


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