From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96801381F3 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B91D8E09BA; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17603E09B9 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-4d083315.pool.mediaWays.net [77.8.51.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E07FB33E2C4 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51B85EEA.2090308@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:43:38 +0200 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130606 Thunderbird/17.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council: Policy for Systemd units References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 298ff205-7328-4769-a5c0-7c46f4f414d5 X-Archives-Hash: eec7032e8d7e15927b256bcdf2ea9e4a I am sorry, but I don't even understand what a co-maintainer is. In my understanding there are only package maintainers. Everyone listed in metadata.xml is a maintainer and has the competence to do any kind of changes. If one of the other maintainers disagree, then it's not a question of who is the master-maintainer and who is the co-maintainer. That's an internal problem of those people and they should deal with it. If they are unable to do that, then they can contact devrel. Period. If a developer refuses to add enhancements to an ebuild without giving technical reasons, then it's a matter for devrel as well. Honestly... In case of systemd I'd just open a bug, attach the fixes and wait for some time. In case of no response I'd just apply it. If the dev reverts it without giving a reason, I will contact him and if necessary devrel. I don't see a reason to introduce a special policy for this. We could go on about such things all day, because there are and will be more. And I am not really sorry about devs dropping maintainership because of such silly issues. If they can't work out something like that, then it's better that way. reasoning > authority