In https://pagure.io/epel/pull-request/329 it is now suggested that EPEL packages can be branched on behalf of the Python Packagers SIG if you are a member.
Only use this with the consent of the packaging SIG in question
Good!
this normally means you are either a member of the SIG
Not good.
Just because you are a member of the Python Packagers SIG, this does not allow you to request EPEL branches on behalf of the SIG and then walk away. Either you are willing to maintain that package in EPEL, or somebody else told you they are, or you don't branch it. There is no way you can just assume that if a package is co-maintained by the SIG that some magical maintainer will maintain the package in EPEL.
Please don't encourage this behavior, I repeatedly called this out and it keeps happening (see e.g. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/OGUFKOWNUD5TXKGDTFMA23GW4ORX6QMY/ or https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366784, which I just got while never agreeing to maintain this package in EPEL).
Metadata Update from @carlwgeorge: - Issue tagged with: meeting
Related: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/deprecating-the-epel-packagers-sig/137923/16
Apologies. I think we need to document each SIG’s policies towards EPEL separately then. This document is probably as good a place as any but we should ask each SIG what they want
I don't think it makes sense to have the EPEL docs cover each individual SIG's policies. I'd sooner remove the entire "Members of Packaging SIGs" section and rely on SIGs to write their own policies regarding this.
#335
#335 has been merged, so this is resolved now.
Metadata Update from @carlwgeorge: - Issue close_status updated to: Fixed - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Thanks.
Log in to comment on this ticket.