I had been right about submitting the ticket, but then I discovered: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5478 https://pagure.io/fedora-commops/issue/84
Since it is probably good idea to keep the things consistent, I requested ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig groups at the end: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6001 Please join the discussion in the ticket. Vít Dne 7.4.2017 v 15:33 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > I still stumbling across this. > > So would anybody mind, if we moved generic ruby packaging discussion to > newly created "ruby" ML and kept this ML for ruby-sig traffic, e.g. > notifications from BZ etc ... > > I am not sure if this is possible and who is actually owner of the ML > etc, but let me know your preferences, so I might try to push this forward. > > > Vít > > > > Dne 30.5.2016 v 15:48 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> Ok, so if I asked for the SIG group, I would need to fill this template: >> >> >> PkgDB2 allows FAS group to maintain packages in Fedora. >> Before applying for a new group, you should ask for a new mailing list >> or agree with the different people concerned to use the mailing list you >> already have. >> Once the mailing list is sorted out, please create a bugzilla account >> for this address. The list will be assigned or made cc to the bugs open >> against the package the group has ACLs for and will be added to the >> <pkg>-owner@fp.o alias. >> >> >> IOW what ML should be used? Can we re-user ruby-sig ML? Wouldn't it >> increase the traffic too much (or may be there would be some traffic >> finally? ;)) ? >> >> >> BTW I went ahead and asked for the group for Copr builds: >> >> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5329 >> >> Let me know if you are interested. >> >> >> Vít >> >> >> >> Dne 26.5.2016 v 09:32 Dominic Cleal napsal(a): >>> On 20/05/16 11:57, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> I think this would be a very good idea. I often come across small tasks >>> to update or fix gems that I could help out with quickly and easily if >>> the package was owned by the group. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ruby-sig mailing list >> ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
