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)
maintainer.
Cu
knurd