On 06.08.2007 17:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 01.08.2007 18:59, Dennis Gilmore wrote: [...]
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora)
If I understand the last para correctly we have two maintainers one the same level -- e.g. no primary per-release maintainer? That's not in line with the co-maintainership policy, which makes sure there is always one person as per-release primary maintainer which is responsible in the end for the packages (and has the last word in case of disputes). I prefer such a scheme, because two people co-maintaining a package in the end could quickly lead to situation where each other thought the other one will take care of the package.
So: -1 for this. I'm all for something like that as last para:
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, then he and the EPEL maintainer should discuss which one takes care of the package. One should become primary per release maintainer, which is kind of responsible for the package in that release; the other should become co-maintainer; how those two share the work is up to them.
Ping -- I got no reactions on this.
To let me rephrase: with the "Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL." it's afaics unclear who's the primary per-release maintainer and who's the co-maintainer in the end. That's not in line with the co-maintainership policy from Fedora, which requests there is a per-release (release=EPEL4 and EPEL5 in this case) maintainer.
Cu knurd