Re: owners.list not entirely right

On 14.10.2008 20:56, Julian Sikorski wrote: > > Thorsten Leemhuis pisze: >> >> On 14.10.2008 11:57, Xavier Lamien wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I skimmed through owners.list for my packages and it seems the setup is >>>> not entirely right. Since the packages I maintain in nonfree are also >>>> comaintained by Chris Stone, I believe for qmc2 and sdlmame* he should >>>> be added to initialcc, and in the case where Chris is the primary >>>> maintainer (sdlmess), I should be. >>>> Could you please also have a look at the cvs acls (if these aren't the >>>> same). A while ago Thorsten rebuilt sdlmame due to some buildsys >>>> issues, >>>> and I did not get any mail regarding cvs commit. >>> >>> Co-maintainers are registered in cvs acls from CVS admin requested >>> (cvs will do its job to mail maintainer and co-maintainer). >>> initalcc is something else where anybody could request to be added to >>> track changes in cvs. >> >> /me wonders if that's supposed to be read as "Julian, please file a >> proper cvs change request in bugzilla" >> >>> I'll have a look on sdlmame >> >> No need to afaics -- I just queued the build with the old tag (and hence >> did not commit anything to cvs), as the older build had never left the >> buildsys. > > I don't mean requeueing Ohh, sorry, I got confused then with the recent buildsys trouble from a few days ago. > If that's > > reasonable, I could file cvs admin requests for all appropriate > packages, so that the acls could be checked. I got the impression that Xavier prefers it that way, hence I leave the answer to him.