On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Aaron Bauman <b...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On June 26, 2020 7:13:07 AM EDT, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> Of all the methods listed in the previous posts, the QA reports, etc.
> >> there is no excuse individuals can't find out if their package is py2
> >> only.
> >
> >None of those methods were posted until a day or two ago, and the
> >python team has done nothing to actually ensure all the impacted
> >maintainers are aware of them.  Perhaps a communication to
> >-dev-announce with the preferred approach would be better?
> >
> You should also look at qa-reports. Do we really need to *teach* others "how 
> to fish" here? Why can't folks just ask for assistance?

Just looked at it:

1.  I had no idea that a list of py2-only packages was listed there.
I don't think I've ever actually looked at that page.

2.  The report does not list maintainers, which means nobody is likely
to know they have a package on the list.

> See above. Qa-reports will output a very nice list (even a graphic!) of such 
> things. Anyway, yes, I do expect devs to understand their packages state if 
> they maintain it. Don't be so myopic.

Well, you can expect whatever you want, and then you can be frustrated
out of your mind when 95% of devs fail to meet your expectations.

Or you could just work with them where they're at and maybe get your
project completed more quickly and with less effort...

If you want people to look at a qa-report, maybe post on -dev-announce
and ask everybody to do it?  Most people aren't going to be following
all the tools used by the python team if they aren't python devs.

> >At least some devs here seemed surprised about the masks.  Did you try
> >filing a bug?
> Have you looked for said bugs?

Of course.  Do you think I'd invite such an obvious reply without
actually checking.

I just went to the first complaint on this list about there not being
a bug, and verified that there wasn't a bug.

As far as I can tell there is no bug for app-misc/golly.  If I missed
one feel free to cite it.

> >
> >Masking something for all users is basically like torturing a kitten
> >to get the attention of its owner.  It is a necessary step if the
> >package is actually to be removed.  I don't think it is even allowable
> >under our policies if no bug was filed.
> >
> Do tell where said policy is?


Granted, a mask isn't a package commit, but I think the spirit of the
policy covers it.

In any case, there is no reason not to communicate with a maintainer
before touching a package.  That should involve something more than a
generic notice that everybody should become a detective to figure out
if they are covered by an upcoming change.  If you have a list of
impacted packages, then just file bugs against them.

> Nothing is really hard about masking packages for removal... honestly.

The complaint isn't that masks are hard on you.  The complaint is that
it bombards users with unnecessary warnings.

> The work comes in defending the position here for the few that complain.

And how are you enjoying doing all that extra work?  Would you prefer
if devs started opening up QA/Comrel bugs that you then have to
formally respond to?

Or maybe you could try notifying devs before masking their packages?

> If I filed a bug... they would complain or not respond... If I sent out a 
> dev-announce they would complain or not respond.

Sometimes, sure.  But at least you would have gone through due
process, and you're unlikely to get much push back.

And I suspect a number of those packages would actually get fixed.

> You see the fun here? Which method is effective? Mask a 100 packages for 
> removal... Someone complains... A few packages get saved and 90 get 
> removed... Life goes on.

Would you want a dev to just mask one of your packages if they saw a
bug in it, without bothering to open a bug?


Reply via email to