Meeting summary/notes from today's EPEL meeting 2010-02-12

[Till Maas]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 02:29:48PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:19:20 +0100
> Till Maas <opensource at till.name> wrote:

> > Also the "Getting a Fedora package in EPEL"[0] procedure is not in
> > sync with what CVS admins require, as they might require a
> > confirmation that a maintainer has been asked:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c15
> > But this is not what the procedure describes.
> > 
> > [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
> 
> I can add clarification there. Basically he was just asking: "have you
> talked to the Fedora maintainer about maintaining this in EPEL". 
> 
> The answer could just have been "yes, I have". 

Are you sure? Because I believe I told him in IRC that the gitolite
maintainer asked the perl-Text-Markdown maintainer via e-mail, because
the gitolite maintainer wrote this in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548324#c20, which I referred
to in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c11

Also on IRC the CVS admin said something that the perl-Text-Markdown
maintainer required that he acked all EL branch requests, before they
would be performed. Hey also used this in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c12

Nevertheless, if there was only some miscommunication and it still will
be enough to just ask the maintainer and mention this on a branch
request to get the branch for EPEL done, then everything is fine.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/attachments/20100217/ba7fc103/attachment.sig>