Hi, I will agree with you. +1. "1)" looks convenient.
Jun ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondr...@redhat.com> > To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:57:37 PM > Subject: ruby-sig FAS group and rubygems build in Copr > > Hi everybody, > > > You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages > in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd > like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these > questions: > > 1) Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could > make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the > group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs. > > 2) For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group > again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence > following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group > (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is > mandated by the infrastructure ticket template). > > > So what are your thoughts? > > > Vít > > > > [1] > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CKC5C5LFZ73S5QHMDARSTSGBCHURTMDE/ > > [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311 > > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list > ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
