On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:01:29 +0100
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/16/2012 03:20 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:28:15 +0100
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >>> However, with the current features of pkgdb, each member of such a
> >>> group would need to
On 01/16/2012 03:20 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:28:15 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
However, with the current features of pkgdb, each member of such a
group would need to "subscribe to" the package in pkgdb. Not just
for "commit" access, but also for some
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:28:15 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > However, with the current features of pkgdb, each member of such a
> > group would need to "subscribe to" the package in pkgdb. Not just
> > for "commit" access, but also for someone to monitor bugzilla and
> > t
* Kevin Kofler [14/01/2012 22:06] :
>
> That's exactly why we need proper support for group ownership in pkgdb.
I believe that this isn't going to happen unless the people who want it
actually submit patches for pkgdb to implement it. Should it be none the less
implemented by other people, there's
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> However, with the current features of pkgdb, each member of such a group
> would need to "subscribe to" the package in pkgdb. Not just for "commit"
> access, but also for someone to monitor bugzilla and the package-owner
> mail alias, which is convenient for team-work, too
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:10:48 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote:
> > Even in the scenario of project-wide write-access to packages,
> > there must be someone to decide when to perform an upgrade.
>
> ... but this someone doesn't have to be an individual nor does it have
> to be the package maintainer. It can
