On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:20:15 +0100
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We talked about, but never finished implementing a timeout on acl
requests.
The way this would work is that maintainer would have some time.. 3
weeks or something to reject a acl request.
Yes, with skychart I made some confusion: after a discussion on a forum
I thought I can use a request for updating a package as a review ticket,
but I soon realize that this wasn't possible. So I became a maintainer
in the correct way and after that I asked privileges in pkgdb to become
a
Mattia Verga wrote:
For the second point, I don't know if a new review should be really
necessary only to verify the presence of obsoletes and provides: in my
opinion if someone is a package maintainer he/she MUST already know how
to rename a package and that this requires obsoletes and
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We talked about, but never finished implementing a timeout on acl
requests.
The way this would work is that maintainer would have some time.. 3
weeks or something to reject a acl request. If they did not do so,
pkgdb would automatically approve it at the end of the time.
I'm just entered the world of Fedora packagers and I see a few points
that can be optimized in my opinion.
1. I saw a package that need to be upgraded. I opened a bug in bugzilla,
after some time whit no response from the maintainer I asked in pkgdb
permissions for that package: I'm still
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:37:16 +0100, MV (Mattia) wrote:
I'm just entered the world of Fedora packagers and I see a few points
that can be optimized in my opinion.
1. I saw a package that need to be upgraded. I opened a bug in bugzilla,
after some time whit no response from the maintainer I
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:37:16 +0100
Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote:
I'm just entered the world of Fedora packagers and I see a few points
that can be optimized in my opinion.
Welcome by the way. ;)
1. I saw a package that need to be upgraded. I opened a bug in
bugzilla, after
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:12:06 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
Even in the scenario of project-wide write-access to
packages, there must be someone to decide when to perform an upgrade.
Not if we make it a project-wide policy to upgrade whenever there isn't a
strong reason not to (as I've been
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Why must it be the opposite? Arbitrary access to packages, possibly
sporadic or random upgrades (as time permits), with no one taking care of
the packages normally.
Because it's a much more effective use of our limited manpower. Everyone
does what they currently have
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:45:28 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Why must it be the opposite? Arbitrary access to packages, possibly
sporadic or random upgrades (as time permits), with no one taking care of
the packages normally.
Because it's a much more effective use of
10 matches
Mail list logo
