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

Re: Updated co-maintainership proposal -- guidelines



On 19.02.2007 10:47, Hans de Goede wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Comments?
First of all let me say that I'm very happy that this has become a "guidelines" document and not a set of hard rules.

That was always meant as such, but wasn't that clear earlier.

I think the name guidelines is wrong though, as currently we already have :
* Packaging Guidelines
* Package Naming Guidelines
* Dist Tag Guidelines
* Package Review Guidelines
Which are must follow rules,  not "guidelines" as used in your proposal.

Well,
- maybe some native English speaker can come up with a better name, but "guidelines" seem to match the meaning of this stuff very well according to my English-German dictionary and my understanding of the English language. - it's not my fault if the stuff from the Packaging Committee uses the wrong word ;-) But I think they used it on purpose, too, as a in some very *rare* situations parts of what is written there is wrong for a particular package and can be ignored.

The new parts look good, I still see little value in the:
"=== Don't (co-)maintain too many packages ===" and
"=== Other aspects of co-maintainership ===" pieces, they make the whole document way too long to read with little added value IMHO.

I think they are worth it. I want to get new contributors into the project and that is the first step into this direction for a alternative way. Sponsorship doesn't scale endlessly.

It doesn't work already anymore. Just imagine *me* wanting to start getting involved today (if I wouldn't have started years ago) -- I would not know what to package as everything I use or I'm interested in is packaged already. But I could start as a co-maintainer for another package, without access to the buildsystem and observed by the primary maintainer.

But if you have a better idea to get new people involved and grown up in Fedora Packaging lang: tell us, as I really think that's hardly needed, as otherwise we have a "open" Fedora (Core) sonn, that's only open to a small group (~300 people) of formally Extras packagers, but still closed to the rest of the world, as it doesn't find a way in. That would be nearly no improvement.

One last note:
" * co-maintainers all get listed in the last field in owners.list.
Note: currently owners.list is locked-down so changes need to be
requested through the wiki, but once the package database is live this
limitation should be removed."

Aren't we changing the owners.list format, so that co-maintainers can be listed in the owners field, clearly seperating maintainers and observers?

Yes, that need to be adjusted.

CU
thl


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