| 1 |
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Now, why does every package supposedly need systemd@ as co-maintainer? |
| 3 |
> I don't think it's usually hard to see that a particular bug report is |
| 4 |
> relevant to systemd and reassign/CC. Even bug wranglers can CC systemd |
| 5 |
> if anything related to systemd is involved. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I agree that it shouldn't be necessary. However, absent some policy |
| 8 |
change, it might be necessary in the case of maintainers hostile to |
| 9 |
systemd. Otherwise the maintainer will just revert the change and |
| 10 |
hide behind the standing policy that maintainers basically have the |
| 11 |
final say. That really isn't the intent of the current policy, but |
| 12 |
that is basically what it boils down to. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
What all of this really amounts to is a bunch of people who don't want |
| 15 |
to work together trying to legally apply the rules to accomplish their |
| 16 |
personal goals, whatever they may be. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Honestly, if the Council just said "we don't want to make this a |
| 19 |
policy, but if systemd maintainers are willing to handle the bugs |
| 20 |
package maintainers should let them add units because that is the |
| 21 |
spirit of the existing policy" I'd be a lot happier. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives