Re: package maintainers please choose a package group

[Carlo De Falco]

> On 14 Mar 2017, at 08:30, Olaf Till <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:47:46PM +0000, Carlo De Falco wrote:
>> For example ocs is already being maintained in an external 
>> repository (which is synchronized to forge only at time of release) 
>> so I would say it would fit the "external" group.
> Community packages should synchronize _not_ only at time of
> release. It should be reasonable to look into the OF repository of the
> package for the current state of its development.

OK, so OCS definitely should go into "external".

The same applies to odepkg, but I see that was already 
not in the list of "community" packages.

It currently also applies to the secs{1,2,3}D packages, but
I am working to bring the main development repository for 
them back to OF (and to turn them into one single package if I manage) 
some time soon so I'll wait to make a decision for those.

>> On the other hand, the website states that also "community" packages 
>> can be maintained in a separate repository, so maybe it's me who really
>> don't get the difference?
> 
> See above.
> 
>> Is the main difference that should guide my choice whether I would like
>> "administrators" to push changes "even without asking before"?
>> 
>> If I would prefer to get a pull request or a patch submitted to the tracker
>> for me to evaluate before pushing does this mean that the packages above
>> should be considered "external"?
> 
> Pushing without asking will be an exception, reserved for obvious
> changes.
> There are other features of or requirements for community packages,
> given at the link in the original e-mail. If you are content with
> them, choose community.

I am happy with other requirements but, as long as I am listed 
as the maintainer, I unfortunately cannot accept the "pushing without 
asking" part. Any chance you may be changing this rule?

> Olaf

c.