On 14.08.2007 20:50, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 11:57:35 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 06.08.2007 17:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 01.08.2007 18:59, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both
>>> people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course
>>> co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora)
>> If I understand the last para correctly we have two maintainers one the
>> same level -- e.g. no primary per-release maintainer? That's not in line
>> with the co-maintainership policy, which makes sure there is always one
>> person as per-release primary maintainer which is responsible in the end
>> for the packages (and has the last word in case of disputes). I prefer
>> such a scheme, because two people co-maintaining a package in the end
>> could quickly lead to situation where each other thought the other one
>> will take care of the package.
>> So: -1 for this. I'm all for something like that as last para:
>> If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, then he
>> and the EPEL maintainer should discuss which one takes care of the
>> package. One should become primary per release maintainer, which is kind
>> of responsible for the package in that release; the other should become
>> co-maintainer; how those two share the work is up to them.
> Ping -- I got no reactions on this.
> To let me rephrase: with the "Then both people will become
> co-maintainers for EPEL." it's afaics unclear who's the primary
> per-release maintainer and who's the co-maintainer in the end. That's
> not in line with the co-maintainership policy from Fedora, which
> requests there is a per-release (release=EPEL4 and EPEL5 in this case)
Sorry it was not clear to you. the Fedora maintainer will become the
co-maintainer. they EPEL maintainer will remain primary. of course this can
be switched if the maintainers agree.
Could you please clarify the wording in the wiki then to make that more