[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 Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Robert Scheck <robert fedoraproject org> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, drago01 wrote:
>> A maintainer[1] is (supposed to be) more that somebody with commit
>> access to the package
>> He/she deals with bugs, coordinate stuff with upstream, etc.
> [...]
>> Again I still think that the only problem that is to be solved here is
>> not the "security issues" but that some people trying to block their
>> packages for whatever reason.
> Ehm? Which things except dealing bugs, upstream stuff etc. has a maintainer
> or have the co-maintainers to handle a non-maintainer could do? And which
> reason do you see not to let changes always go over the desk of maintainer
> or co-maintainers (which is simply disallowing provenpackager)?

see below.

> Four eyes see more than two. AFAIK the kernel people are reviewing all of
> their changes and approve them various times before commiting them. Doing
> this or similar things seems to be a quality enhancement to me (which comes
> back to my original issue).

Of course big changes should not be done without getting the
maintainers agreement.
But waiting for a maintainer to respond to a bug report for trivial
stuff like "rebuild against foo" is not very productive.
Also its easier to just tell a bug reporter (if he is a packager)
"changes look good, go ahead and commit"

That's how stuff worked now (also called "common sense"), do we really
need guidelines and restrictions for *everything*?

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