On 18 February 2011 10:43, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 06:33:35 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: >> On 2/17/2011 4:59 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 05:20:07 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: >> >> On 2/14/2011 11:34 PM, Martin Pool wrote: >> >>> We have a question in <https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/516709> about >> >>> what the permissions on official package branches ought to be, and how >> >>> they should be explained to the user. >> >> >> >> Obviously people feel very passionate about this subject, given the >> >> intense discussion. </sarcasm> >> > >> > So far I asked what a "celebrity" is in this context and no one answered. >> >> Hmmm. I don't see your other message. >> >> As I understand it, things like ~ubuntu-branches. But I could be wrong. >> > I don't understand it either, that's why I ask. In the original message > option 1 started, "Don't allow branches owned by non-celebrities to become the > official branch for a package." Without knowing what a celebrity is in this > context it's a bit difficult to commenton the proposal.
As jml said, it's a user specially known to the Launchpad codebase. For instance, ~admins is in that category because they have some permissions that you cannot obtain other than by becoming a member of that team. In this case, it would be that Launchpad would have some code to say ~ubuntu-branches or similar must be the only owner of official package branches. (Or perhaps it's not even strictly necessary to make it exactly a celebrity, as long as there are other limits on changing official branches.) Anyhow, the gist of it would be that it would still have a nominal owner, but an owner that no human can access. The only access would be through Ubuntu package access control rules. Martin -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
