On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:43 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > I propose simplifying this and opening fedora-release releases to more > > contributors: > > > > 1. Let's drop "upstream" at https://pagure.io/fedora-release and > > make the "downstream" the canonical source of the package, > > > > 2. Allow pull requests in src.fp.o/fedora-release, > > I agree with both of these > > > 3. With 1 and 2. implemented, it'll be easier for any fedora maintainer > > to suggest improvements to the package (through PRs) and it'll also > > be possible for proven packagers to do changes without stepping on > > the toes of the maintainers and interfering with the separate > "upstream" > > repo. Let's agree to allow pps to update fedora-release as necessary > > when the main maintainers are busy. > > I don't agree with this, there's often reasons for things and we often > get pull requests that are incorrect and need a couple of revisions. > > I think I agree with Peter here. fedora-release is a package that probably *shouldn't* be granted access to provenpackagers. That said, I think we should probably set a policy in place that releng will quickly merge any changes limited to presets that are acked by a trusted individual such as Zbigniew. We can write up some simple rules for this which would probably boil down to "Must have followed the preset request policy and include a comment pointing to the relevant BZ". > > 4. Release fedora-release quickly, so that when a preset change request > > comes in [1], it can be handled in a few days or a week. (Having such > > requests hanging usually blocks changes to the package in question, > > so it's important to have the resolution of the preset status without > > undue delay.) > > There's no reason for that not to happen, and generally most of the > holdups that people perceive here are not actually the maintainers but > issues with the PR or the review of the actual changes being made. > > I believe for such a critical package that has the ability to break > the distribution there should be review of the proposed changes. > > I suppose the other thing we could try to do would be to separate the presets into its own package, but that seems like unnecessary overhead compared to coming up with a decent review-and-merge policy.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
