As much as we have disagreed on the previous topic we might have similar thoughts here
:).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:51:31 PM
Subject: Dropping the ownership model
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence
would
make every contributor an "proven packager"?
Well, everyone becoming a proven packager is going too far from the beginning.
Though I have to say that this approach worked quite good in Mandriva in the past.
I still remember misc telling me "please don't break too much" . For the few
years I maintained packages there
I haven't seen a single case of someone abusing his powers.
Would it be viable to move to something like language SIG based
ownership of packages?
SIGs are quite good idea and making more use of them can help providing more structure
when in need of getting help.
As in lower the barrier of entry of contributor without the need and
or
introduction of an package or any sponsorship and have them assigned
to
relevant SIG based on language they either know or want to learn. (
not
necessarly having to tie packaging with code contribution ).
The governing body of the SIG would in essence be the once that would
be
responsible for the components.
Well SIGs don't really have governing bodies and it is always good to have a concrete
name when you look for contacts for some package.
Probably packages can be assigned to person and SIG and they are open for everyone from
the SIG but still having a concrete name you can talk to.
Essentially the SIG will be the owner of the package and a person(s) will be listed as
something like primary contact(s).
So as an example a indvidual skilled in Java who would want to join
the
project would automatically be assigned to the java SIG which in turn
would be assigned and managing all Java related components then the
Java
SIG based on what ever process/workflow they have decided would
assign
to that individual what ever task is needed at current times
prioritized
by the knowledge and resource they posses.
As we(Java SIG) have quite similar approach aka someone from the SIG is taking a task
he wants to work on and do it no matter who is the maintainer/co-maintainers the current
situation is a bit annoying because people have to collect way too many permissions in
pkgdb
and this is either slowing down the process or depending on some provenpackager to push
the work.
Such a SIG approach to packaging will definetely make it easier and as long as the
packager has
access only to the SIG's packages this should not scare other SIGs because new
packager in certain
SIG wouldn't be able to touch other SIGs packages.
Alexander Kurtakov
So basically the barrier of entry is no higher than what the
individual
wants to learn or knows already as in..
Do you know or want to learn python. Join the python SIG etc...
Do you want to learn distribution packaging join the Packaging SIG
Or the individual would learn how to package components relevant to
the
SIG he just joined
Thoughts?
Far off and totally crazy, you are mad!
What meds are you on can I have some?
The SIG approach is something that actually might work...
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel