| 1 |
On 20/07/17 22:06, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Here's v2, taking into account suggestions from k_f and wraeth: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> ==Privileges and responsibilities of proxied maintainers== |
| 6 |
> What you get as a proxied maintainer: |
| 7 |
> * ability to maintain ebuilds directly in the Gentoo repository for all |
| 8 |
> our users to use; |
| 9 |
> * coverage from our teams: QA, security; |
| 10 |
> * coverage by package-oriented services: [http://euscan.gentooexperiment |
| 11 |
> al.org euscan], [https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/ qa-reports], |
| 12 |
> [https://repology.org/ repology]; |
| 13 |
> * ability to request keywording on additional architectures (but note |
| 14 |
> that most of arch teams are against proactive keywording) and to request |
| 15 |
> stabilization; |
| 16 |
<snip> |
| 17 |
It's a subtle point, but it's one I think that can be fixed with a |
| 18 |
wording tweak - I get wraeth's point about users requesting |
| 19 |
stabilisation of a package, which is quite true .. so I think the |
| 20 |
wording of the final point here might be better as something like "... |
| 21 |
to request stabilisation of a package by the Arch Teams" or such. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
After all, we're basically talking about the correct authority to CC the |
| 24 |
arch teams on the stabilisation bugs, vs filing a stabilisation bug, |
| 25 |
right? [which also might warrant mentioning/clarifying at another stage]. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's a minor point, but may be clearer exactly what's being indicated, |
| 28 |
rather than creating confusion or misinterpretation. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
HTH, |
| 31 |
MJE |
Archives