Packages with inactive owners orphaned and inactive comaintainers removed

[Petr Pisar]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 06:01:03AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 10:07 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:51:32AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>On 01/11/2012 09:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> >>>On 01/11/2012 05:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>>>Note that the perl-sig pseudo-user could own the packages if the perl-sig
> >>>>wants to continue maintaining them and doesn't want them orphaned. That
> >>>>works right now. What it wouldn't grant is commit rights to the packages.
> >>>>
> >>>So, pseudo-user wouldn't work well...
> >>I don't see any reason why it would not.
> >>
> >What about regular PGP key and password changes?  Wouldn't perl-sig find
> >guilty on next clean-up and removed of the ownership?
> I don't understand what you are trying to express.
> 
The same what happened to cweyl.

> >>perl-sig mails go to the perl mailing list, anybody interested can listen
> >>and step in. It's what several persons who are subscribed to the perl-list
> >>seem to have done for a long time - E.g. I do.
> >>
> >Only the ones who are rights to commit.
> ?!? All mails stemming from packages with perl-sig as maintainer or
> co-maintainer would have to go to the perl-devel list.
> 
Everybody can listen but not everybody can step in.

Without real group support from package database side there cannot be real
group of maintainers. Now each maintainer must be granted permissions for each
package separately. So there is no positive effect of making perl-sig the
owner.

> >>I.e. to sum up: Actually nothing would change to you and nothing would
> >>change many of the "perl-sig" maintainers.
> >>
> >There would be a problem that nobody would be personally responsible for
> >a package.
> You are presuming there is a need to have a personal "responsibility".
> 
> The purpose of "collaborative maintenance" is to abandon this tie and to
> replace it with a "group responsibility".
>
I don't think group responsibility works. The result is every group memeber
says it does somebody else and then bugs will never get fixed.

> >I think it's better when each package is owned by a real person.
> I don't agree. Like in real life, all tasks beyond a certain size require to
> team up and can not be handled by single individuals anymore.
> 
I see the point, but then there must be set some packaging standard. Like some
rawhide spec files are kept compatible with EPEL-5, some packages are not
registered for release monitoring, some packagers require different subset of
package dependencies, some packages are rebased through all distributions etc.

Once you get your packages for free modifications by a group, then you cannot
expect they do not divert from your packaging standards. Therefore I like the
idea a person maintains his set of packages and the other ones step in only
for short temporary help.

-- Petr
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/perl-devel/attachments/20120113/abb09343/attachment.sig>