I am totally okay with team maintenance. Lots of thanks!!! Hugs, Miry
El jue, 14 mar 2024 a las 19:18, Andreas Tille (<andr...@an3as.eu>) escribió: > > Hi Miriam, > > gentle ping about this. I remember for cycle and pcalendar you was fine > with team maintenance. So I assume in this case you are as well. If > we do not hear from you in the next two weeks we will assume agreement. > > Kind regards > Andreas. > > ----- Weitergeleitete Nachricht von Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> ----- > > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:48:21 +0100 > From: Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> > To: Miriam Ruiz <mir...@debian.org> > Subject: Is it OK to switch Uploader and Maintainer in deap [Was: Suggesting > change in DPT policy] > > Hi Miriam, > > as you can read below I doubt that the situation in several packages is > the interpretation of "weak" team maintenance if the Maintainer field is > set to a person. In the case of your package deap I would guess you > are OK if I would swap these fields in a potential upload of the new > upstream version (which might potentially fix > #1018336 deap: build-depends on python3-nose or uses it for autopkgtest > ) > Would you mind if I would do so? > > Kind regards > Andreas. > > ----- Weitergeleitete Nachricht von Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> ----- > > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 09:05:44 +0100 > From: Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> > To: Debian Python <debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org> > Subject: Suggesting change in DPT policy > > Hi, > > I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of > the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to > DPMT[1][2]. I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages > from the Blends teams to DPT. I was happy with this move since it makes > sense. > > Recently we received lots of testing removal warnings in those Blends > teams due to RC bugs caused by Cython 3.0 and Python3.12 migrations. So > I did what I usually do in those teams: I dedicated quite some time in > team wide bug hunting. That way I squashed about 50 bugs on packages > where I was not in Uploaders. When doing so I usually run > routine-update on the package which basically streamlines packaging to > latest standards including calling Janitor tools which are so far > accepted inside DPT. > > I probably should have reviewed the DPT policy on Maintainership[3] more > carefully. In other teams, it's common for the Maintainer to be set to > the team, so I assumed it was just an oversight when I made this > change[4] when touching the package to fix RC bug #1058177. However, I > I was pointed immediately about the fact that I was mistaken according > to the current DPT policy. I apologize for this. However, the wording > of the comment on my commit was discouraging, especially considering I > was a volunteer who had fixed a critical bug. Because of this, I > decided to focus my efforts on fixing other critical bugs for the > moment. If the comment had started with a 'Thanks for fixing the > critical bug, but...' I likely would have corrected my mistake quickly. > The lack of respect from my teammate simply made me prioritize my time > on other issues that are more visible to our users. I wonder whether I > should propose another change to the policy about maintaining a kind and > polite language inside the team - but that's a different thing. > > While I applied the patch for another RC bug (#1063443) after >2 weeks > which triggered a RC bug in reportbug I remembered the "keep the > maintainer" policy. But I kept on doing Janitor like changes since > finally the package is maintained in a team where Janitor is accepted. > When doing so I failed the phrase "please contact the Maintainer for the > green light." I apoligize for this again. The response was another > volunteer-demotivating private mail (thus no quote) which also was > lacking the "Thanks for fixing"-phrase and degrading my changes as > "frivolous". > > So far what happened (seen from my possibly biased perspective). > > Why do I like to change the policy? > > The current wording provides some means to stop volunteer team members > helping out moving forward to speed up migrations and fix Debian wide > dependencies. It hides team maintained packages from a common BTS > view. When pointing my browser to > https://bugs.debian.org/team+pyt...@tracker.debian.org > I currently see 1339 open bugs (calculated by [UDD1]). This hides > another 309 [UDD2] bugs (>18% of team bugs) from our sight. To work > around this flaw I used an UDD query to find relevant Python3.12 bugs. > > When I think twice about the wording > Team in Uploaders is a weak statement of collaboration.[3] > I personally consider it a statement of *no* collaboration (which fits > the wording of the responses I've got). > > How can a team member for instance find another RC bug #1009424? Just > from reading the bug report it is pretty easy to fix but does not > feature any response in BTS. I came across this while looking into > Cython 3.0 bugs. The same source package (basemap) that had the open > Cython bug (#1056789, tagged patch since 2023-12-09) is featuring RC bug > (#1009424) that stayed unattended for 22 months? We all know volunteers > have limited time and I do not want to blame anybody in the team to not > care promptly about RC bugs. But what else is the sense of a packaging > team than stepping in situations for long standing RC bugs and RC bugs > tagged patch? > > This kind of situation wouldn't occur in teams where collaboration is > strong and communication is effective. My motivation to address these > long-ignored critical bugs diminishes when the maintainer opts for > "weak" cooperation and lacks respectful communication with potential > helpers. I see no difference to simply do a NMU. > > I've checked the current situation who is actually using the DPT team as > Uploaders[UDD3]. 66 of the 73 maintainers have less than 5 packages > some of these "Maintainers" are other teams and lots of the persons > listed as Maintainer are known to be MIA. This means the packages are > de-facto not maintained which is most probably an unwanted effect of the > current policy. I know other maintainers from other teams to be fine > with stronger team understanding. > > Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for newcomers > as well as long standing contributors I would like to suggest to drop > this "weak statement of collaboration" option from policy. I've attached > an according patch to the team policy[5]. I'm fine with creating a MR > to be discussed rather in Salsa than this mailing list - whatever seems > worthwhile to you. > > Kind regards > Andreas. > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2021/12/msg00051.html > [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2021/12/msg00051.html > [3] > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst#maintainership > [4] > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/sphinxtesters/-/commit/d8b1083db26c753c8a76dd91b7e91f3ef98c0515 > [5] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules > > > PGPASSWORD="udd-mirror" psql --port=5432 --host=udd-mirror.debian.net > --username=udd-mirror udd -c \ > > [UDD1] select count(*) from bugs b inner join (select distinct source, > maintainer FROM sources WHERE maintainer_email = > 'team+pyt...@tracker.debian.org') s ON s.source=b.source where status not in > ('done'); > [UDD2] select count(*) from bugs b inner join (select distinct source, > uploaders FROM sources WHERE uploaders like > '%team+pyt...@tracker.debian.org%') s ON s.source=b.source where status not > in ('done'); > [UDD3] select maintainer, count(*) from sources where uploaders like > '%team+pyt...@tracker.debian.org%' and release = 'sid' group by maintainer > order by maintainer; > > -- > http://fam-tille.de > > diff --git a/policy.rst b/policy.rst > index 27bf6f3..7185d6d 100644 > --- a/policy.rst > +++ b/policy.rst > @@ -48,20 +48,14 @@ Maintainership > ============== > > A package maintained within the team should have the name of the team either > -in the ``Maintainer`` field or in the ``Uploaders`` field. > +in the ``Maintainer``. > > Maintainer: Debian Python Team <team+pyt...@tracker.debian.org> > > This enables the team to have an overview of its packages on the > DDPO_website_. > > -* Team in ``Maintainers`` is a strong statement that fully collaborative > - maintenance is preferred. Anyone can commit to the Git repository and > upload > - as needed. A courtesy email to ``Uploaders`` can be nice but not required. > - > -* Team in ``Uploaders`` is a weak statement of collaboration. Help in > - maintaining the package is appreciated, commits to the Git repository are > - freely welcomed, but before uploading, please contact the ``Maintainer`` > for > - the green light. > +Anyone can commit to the Git repository and upload > +as needed. > > Team members who have broad interest should subscribe to the mailing list > debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org whereas members who are only interested in > some > > > ----- Ende weitergeleitete Nachricht ----- > > -- > http://fam-tille.de > > ----- Ende weitergeleitete Nachricht ----- > > -- > http://fam-tille.de
