Petr Pisar wrote:
I don't think group responsibility works. The result is every
group
memeber says it does somebody else and then bugs will never get fixed.
Group responsibility has been working fine for KDE SIG ever since its
inception with the Core-Extras Merge in Fedora 7. No matter who the official
primary maintainer is, the core KDE packages are de facto all SIG-maintained
and we all feel responsible for them. I don't see why such a model wouldn't
work for other SIGs nor why we still don't have pkgdb support for this (all
the core KDE packages should probably be owned by a kde-sig group, and a
bunch of KDE-related packages comaintained by the SIG).
Once you get your packages for free modifications by a group, then
you
cannot expect they do not divert from your packaging standards.
Of course you need to accept some compromises, like in any other team-
maintained code. So it helps to agree on a SIG-wide standard. But I don't
see why this would be a problem for specfiles any more than for upstream
projects, many of which are team-maintained. (In fact, the whole purpose of
the Fedora packaging guidelines is to have a common standard for packages,
but some stylistic issues are deliberately left unspecified there and should
be agreed on in the SIG.)
Kevin Kofler