On 09/13/2013 06:23 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:

Hi,

In these days this problem are hitting more and more people, I can see many SIGs on the page, but is it compulsory/mandatory for all packagers to add CC to some SIGs? I can't see any reference in the PG, only in Package SCM admin requests page.

I guess you are referring to me having advised several people to adding InitialCC: perl-sig to their recent perl-packages.

For perl, we have http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl which is documenting what has been existing practice for many years.

All this InitialCC: perl-sig does is to echo all mails the package-owner receives to the perl-sig mailing-list. It hereby thus notifyies other perl-package maintainers about changes/updates/upgrades/bugs with other perl packages and enables them to jump-in/gap-fill, in cases maintainers are overwhelmed with an issue, be temporary unavailable or doesn't have the appropriate privileges to fix an issue.

In other words, this InitialCC: is aiming at encouraging collaborative maintenance and keeping the zoo of approx. 1500 perl-packages Fedora carries maintainable.

Ralf

On 09/13/2013 06:23 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:

Hi,

In these days this problem are hitting more and more people, I can see many SIGs on the page, but is it compulsory/mandatory for all packagers to add CC to some SIGs? I can't see any reference in the PG, only in Package SCM admin requests page. Also is this list up-to-dated? Like if new SIGs are founded, should we revise the PG also? e.g. design-software.

Hey Christopher

in the audio SIG we add a tracking BZ ticket to new packages. I watch the review requests notifications and add them as they come up.

regards,

Brendan