concept of package "ownership"

[Nils Philippsen]

On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 03:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > We need groups, with "grouped privileges/acls" etc. It's essentially
> > what e.g. the "perl-sig" originally was meant to be.
> 
> Yes, group ACLs are definitely needed, but in addition to that technical 
> feature, we also need to make sure that the SIG actually gets commit access 
> to ALL packages related to the SIG. ALL perl-* packages should be 
> committable to by the Perl SIG. That's what a SIG is for. And it'd have 
> prevented this whole "why were X and Y added as maintainers to my perl-* 
> packages" fiasco, it would just have been the SIG's decision to add the 
> people to the SIG and this should automatically give commit access to all 
> perl-* packages.
> 
> Similarly, all packages using Qt should be committable to by the KDE SIG 
> etc.

AIUI, a SIG are more people than those who actually work on related
packages as maintainers, or are competent and responsible enough to not
break things in the process of updating packages with which they're not
familiar (otherwise they'd be (co-)maintainers, wouldn't they?).

If we ever get group ACLs, I think we should have $SIG-packager groups,
consisting of SIG members who fulfill the above, who get that kind of
access.

Nils
-- 
Nils Philippsen      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase 
Red Hat               a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nils at redhat.com       nor Safety."  --  Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint:      C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011