On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Robert Scheck <robert(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, drago01 wrote:
> A maintainer[1] is (supposed to be) more that somebody with commit
> access to the package
> He/she deals with bugs, coordinate stuff with upstream, etc.
[...]
> Again I still think that the only problem that is to be solved here is
> not the "security issues" but that some people trying to block their
> packages for whatever reason.
Ehm? Which things except dealing bugs, upstream stuff etc. has a maintainer
or have the co-maintainers to handle a non-maintainer could do? And which
reason do you see not to let changes always go over the desk of maintainer
or co-maintainers (which is simply disallowing provenpackager)?
see below.
Four eyes see more than two. AFAIK the kernel people are reviewing
all of
their changes and approve them various times before commiting them. Doing
this or similar things seems to be a quality enhancement to me (which comes
back to my original issue).
Of course big changes should not be done without getting the
maintainers agreement.
But waiting for a maintainer to respond to a bug report for trivial
stuff like "rebuild against foo" is not very productive.
Also its easier to just tell a bug reporter (if he is a packager)
"changes look good, go ahead and commit"
That's how stuff worked now (also called "common sense"), do we really
need guidelines and restrictions for *everything*?