[Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

[Daniel Narvaez]

By the way, we seem to have a non responsive maintainer policy already.

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Policy_for_nonresponsive_maintainers

Any reason we are not following it?


On 24 December 2013 21:49, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey Lim <alsroot at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>> > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
>> > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
>> > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
>> > even after Alan uploads new ones.)
>>
>> I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with git.sl.o
>> in this case (passing ownership).
>
>
> ASLO is more similar to a distribution than to gitorious repositories and
> distributions usually have non-responsive maintainer policies
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
>
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa
>
>
>> At the end, the important thing is that
>> both versions should be available for users (the original version, and
>> the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly possible to
>> have only one download entity [on ASLO].
>>
>
> If we have to choose, I think it's more important to make an improved
> activity available then old versions provided by the original maintainer.
>
>
>> In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
>> to handle this kind of issues in the future.
>>
>
>  We can reevaluate when SN takes over, but given the current
> infrastructure I think giving Alan joint ownership is the most pragmatic
> approach.
>



-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131224/e14e2981/attachment.html>