Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > No, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying. You want to commit > first and let the maintainer bring it to the council. I'm saying the > maintainer has the right to have any non-security commit to his/her > package reverted pending a decision.
Yea, I realize now I read it wrong :)
> The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
> and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in
> the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else.
I think it really depends on the situation, but in general I disagree
that something should be left in a state that the QA team finds
questionable/broken. It should be a very rare occurence that this comes
up, since we don't really want to override what the maintainer says, but
I think the QA team should have this right in extreme circumstances.
--
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
http://www.halcy0n.com
pgp8iRpskxJ5q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
