On Monday 16 July 2007 4:08:42 pm rob myers wrote:
here is a complete version, with the co-maintainership changes rahul
suggested. comments?
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL,
first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to
participate in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer can request the branch
directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The
EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request,
so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as
well.
If it is unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package participates in
EPEL then the EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask
about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there
is no answer within seven days the EPEL maintainer is free to request
the EPEL branch (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well).
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and no
more than one month has passed, then the EPEL maintainer of the package
must hand primary per release maintainership back to the Fedora
maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested). If the Fedora
maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and more than one month
has passed, the EPEL maintainer of the package should strongly consider
co-maintainership, but does not have to.
Here is what i propose. make it a bit simpler
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL,
first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to
participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer can request the branch
directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The
proposed EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch
request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in
EPEL as well.
If it is unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package intends to
participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora
maintainer and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at
hand. If there is no answer within seven days the proposed EPEL maintainer
is free to request the EPEL branch and become the EPEL Maintainer (CC the
Fedora maintainer here as well). If the Fedora maintainer decides not to be
active in EPEL they should be added to the CC list for all bugs so that
collaboration can happen where a bug effects Fedora and EPEL.
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both
people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course it can be extended to
Fedora)
Dennis