rfc: permissions on package branches

[Martin Pool]

On 18 February 2011 10:43, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2011 06:33:35 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> On 2/17/2011 4:59 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 05:20:07 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> >> On 2/14/2011 11:34 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
>> >>> We have a question in <https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/516709> about
>> >>> what the permissions on official package branches ought to be, and how
>> >>> they should be explained to the user.
>> >>
>> >> Obviously people feel very passionate about this subject, given the
>> >> intense discussion. </sarcasm>
>> >
>> > So far I asked what a "celebrity" is in this context and no one answered.
>>
>> Hmmm. I don't see your other message.
>>
>> As I understand it, things like ~ubuntu-branches. But I could be wrong.
>>
> I don't understand it either, that's why I ask.  In the original message
> option 1 started, "Don't allow branches owned by non-celebrities to become the
> official branch for a package."  Without knowing what a celebrity is in this
> context it's a bit difficult to commenton the proposal.

As jml said, it's a user specially known to the Launchpad codebase.
For instance, ~admins is in that category because they have some
permissions that you cannot obtain other than by becoming a member of
that team.

In this case, it would be that Launchpad would have some code to say
~ubuntu-branches or similar must be the only owner of official package
branches.  (Or perhaps it's not even strictly necessary to make it
exactly a celebrity, as long as there are other limits on changing
official branches.)

Anyhow, the gist of it would be that it would still have a nominal
owner, but an owner that no human can access.  The only access would
be through Ubuntu package access control rules.

Martin