On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 04:10:08PM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:54:07PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 2020-03-25 17:33, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > [Branching] removes community maintainer from the conversation about what
> > downstream is doing. While we want to give community member a voice in
> > that conversation.
>
> I fear that this proposal *forces* the community member to participate in
> the discussion. That is a very different thing than giving them a voice.
>
That reminds me that even if all the ELN changes were pushed into dedicated
branch, the package owner would have to grant commit access to the packagers
who is going to maintain the ELN branch. This how Pagure works.
We has already observed this issue with EPEL branches where someone else wants
to maintain an EPEL package in the EPEL branch but cannot because the package
owner in Fedora does not respond to grant him the commit access to that
package.
Yep, that happens and is very frustrating to people blocked by this.
Most of the time it's the usual story of people being too busy, but a
contributing factor is that there's no per-branch access — in pagure
it's all or nothing — so one has too trust the new co-maintainer fully.
Zbyszek