Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

[Kevin Kofler]

Peter Jones wrote:
> It's very similar, but not quite the same, for a couple of reasons. To
> wit, Jesse's proposal mostly seems to focus on the repos being somewhat
> transient - "Bob wants a repo to test something" - whereas I'm discussing
> a longer-term purpose.  Also, his is on a individual level, whereas what
> I'm discussing would be more at a SIG level. That in some sense may make
> implementation somewhat easier, by putting a damper on the rate at which
> they need to be created and destroyed, and also might include some
> oversight as to whether creating it is really such a good idea - but
> making it a "is this completely bogus" sort of choice, rather than a
> "does this fit in to our rigorous policies" kind of decision. This
> would also help avoid the option-overload that comes with #3 on my
> original example list.

SIG-level repos would work for stuff like KDE, but what about those packages 
where a maintainer just wants to provide a new version, but there's no SIG 
clearly responsible for the package? Many of our packages are maintained by 
1 or 2 people, not by a SIG. For example, what about Gnash? I could stick 
Gnash updates in the KDE SIG repo under your proposal, but I'm not convinced 
that would be a good place for them. And what about packages which neither 
clearly map to a SIG by its contents (which is the case for Gnash) nor have 
a maintainer clearly attached to a SIG (which happens not to be the case for 
Gnash, but for many other packages, it is, since we do not require 
membership in any SIG to maintain a package)?

        Kevin Kofler