On 14.08.2007 20:50, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 11:57:35 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 06.08.2007 17:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 01.08.2007 18:59, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both
>>> people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course
>>> co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora)
>> If I understand the last para correctly we have two maintainers one the
>> same level -- e.g. no primary per-release maintainer? That's not in line
>> with the co-maintainership policy, which makes sure there is always one
>> person as per-release primary maintainer which is responsible in the end
>> for the packages (and has the last word in case of disputes). I prefer
>> such a scheme, because two people co-maintaining a package in the end
>> could quickly lead to situation where each other thought the other one
>> will take care of the package.
>>
>> So: -1 for this. I'm all for something like that as last para:
>>
>> If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, then he
>> and the EPEL maintainer should discuss which one takes care of the
>> package. One should become primary per release maintainer, which is kind
>> of responsible for the package in that release; the other should become
>> co-maintainer; how those two share the work is up to them.
> Ping -- I got no reactions on this.
>
> To let me rephrase: with the "Then both people will become
> co-maintainers for EPEL." it's afaics unclear who's the primary
> per-release maintainer and who's the co-maintainer in the end. That's
> not in line with the co-maintainership policy from Fedora, which
> requests there is a per-release (release=EPEL4 and EPEL5 in this case)
> maintainer.
Sorry it was not clear to you. the Fedora maintainer will become the
co-maintainer. they EPEL maintainer will remain primary. of course this can
be switched if the maintainers agree.
Could you please clarify the wording in the wiki then to make that more
obvious?
CU
knurd