enforce co-maintainers

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Ralf Corsepius schrieb:
> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 15:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> seth vidal schrieb:
>>>>> You also have the problem of folks being on holiday. It's not unusual in
>>>>> the UK for people to vanish for 2 - 3 weeks.
>>>> So what? While on vacation, one of your packages may need the attention.
>>>> It's best to have co-maintainers.
>>> +1 for co-maintainers.
>> Well, should we try to enforce co-maintainers in the longer term?
> Enforce? ... encourage, yes.

Yeah, that's probably better. But we have support for that for some time
now but it's rarely used afaics :-/

>>  E.g. a
>> rule "each package must have at least one primary maintainer and one
>> co-maintainer"?
> I am strongly opposed to this. It would be counterproductive.
> 
> What we need is teams, dealing with certain tasks (e.g. systematic
> packaging bugs, x86_64 portability issues, security),

Agreed.

> not "multiple
> owners", fighting for details.

That's why I (or this idea that was posted to the list some month ago
iirc) mentioned "primary" maintainer.

Cu
thl