On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:52 AM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So, some things I wonder about this process (in no particular order): > > If this lightweight process is easier, will not people just use it over > the normal process? So, it will be harder to see who is completely > unresponsive. There will be some of their packages with no one doing > anything, and some with a co-maintainer that is doing all the work. > ie, this process will be easier/better for particular maintainers, but > might be less good for the distribution as a whole? The process we have for removal of inactive packagers probably helps with this? > Might clarify what 'added as a co-maintainer' means specifically? > ie, added as admin I assume since thats needed to do branches, > or did you mean collaborator or committer? :+1: this would be good to have clarified. FWIW for requesting branches, "commit" ACL is enough. > It would sure be nice if we could somehow automate things instead > of depending on the requestor noting dates, etc > (but thats a problem with the normal process too). > > Anyhow, I think it's worth trying and adjust if it seems like it's > not working out. Fabio -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
