On 05.12.2007 16:51, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:41:20 -0500
Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Having just looked a bit closer and talked with Jeremy, here is what I
> think we can do.
In general: looks good. But it's actually quite similar that was
purposed in a older discussion not that many months ago but not further
realized because then I was told that having a second group in FAS is
not that easy to realize for this task.
> "cvsextras" as a FAS group becomes something like just
'cvspkgs'.
> Warren is already planning on doing this. Membership in this group
> gives you a couple things.
>
> 1) file level ACLs on the cvs server to
> write to the file system. Everybody has to have this in order for cvs
> to write out files on your behalf.
>
> 2) A grouping of all Fedora package maintainers. All maintainers
> would have to be in cvspkgs.
>
> We would then create a new group, cvsexperienced or some other name
> such as this. This group is the group that gets CVS ACLs to all
> modules that haven't opted out of this openness. This takes the place
> of what we have in pkgdb currently as cvsextras commit. Entry to this
> group should be relatively low barrier, but there is still a barrier
> between the fresh contributors and everybody elses packages.
With this words it sounds to me like a bit to low barrier, but that
depends on the exact definition.
> Finally we have the cvsadmin group who just has blanket access
no
> matter what, and this doesn't have to change.
>
> With some relatively small changes this could be accomplished. The
> interesting discussion points are A) what is the criteria to get added
> to cvsexperienced? Obviously sponsors are automatically added, but
> there should be other ways to get in.
IMHO is the barrier should be something like "invested quite some work
into Fedora (something like: maintained 8 packages or did a lot of other
work in Fedora-land and is around for more then 3 or 6 months)" and
"showed that be knows the packaging guidelines"; IOW: can be trusted.
But something like that is not easily written down. I think FESCo (or
some other group; the sponsors maybe?) should just approve people if
they trust them. And people should have a reasons to get that access; we
should not simply hand it out accoring to some static rules.)
> B) who from the current members
> of cvsextras would we grandfather into cvsexperienced?
I'd say only sponsors, people around for a long time (two years maybe?)
or with a lot of packages (more then 12 maybe?) and are active.
> C) what is a
> better name for "cvsexperienced".
cvstrusted ?
> D) when to make this happen.
E) how to maintain that group, as people become inactive or leave over
time again.
I forgot to mention. Membership in cvspkgs does not give you wide
access. In fact, the members of cvspkgs are not "considered" when
creating CVS ACLs. The owners/co-maintainers of packages are, and
members of cvsexperienced are (provided the package in question allows
for cvsexperienced commit access).
This effectively keeps new packagers to only A) the packages they own,
and B) the packages the co-maintain with other people.
CU
knurd