Hi!
On 04.07.2007 15:52, rob myers wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 17:29 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[...]
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL he should
first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to
participate in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer can request the branch
directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The
EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request,
so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as
well.
If it's unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package participates in
EPEL then the EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask
about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there
is no answer within seven days the EPEL maintainer is free to request
the EPEL branch (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well). If the Fedora
maintainer later wants to participate in EPEL, then the EPEL maintainer
of the package should hand primary per release maintainership back to
the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested).
We approved this in this weeks meeting and I added it to the wiki. But
on fedora-devel a problem with the last part was raised; see
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-July/msg00332.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-July/msg00334.html
Therefor I'd like to change the last sentence of the policy to this:
If the Fedora maintainer within less then 1 month wants to participate
in EPEL, then the EPEL maintainer of the package must hand primary per
release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become
comaintainer, if interested), if he's interested. If the Fedora
maintainer at a later point in time wants to participate in EPEL and get
his package back then the EPEL maintainer should strongly consider doing
so, but doesn't has to.
How does this sound?
CU
thl