On 06-07-2022 15:50:30 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-07-04 at 16:19 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a new metadata XML element for packages:
> > 
> >      <non-maintainer-commits-welcome/>
> > 
> > Maintainers can signal to other developers (and of course contributors 
> > in general) that they are happy with others to make changes to the 
> > ebuilds without prior consultation of the maintainer.
> I don't think adding such an element is a good idea.  In my opinion,
> this will strengthen the assumption that "unless otherwise noted, you
> don't dare touch anything" (even though that's not your goal).  "Common
> sense" should really be good enough for almost everything.

Right, "common sense".  The problem with that one, is that "common" is
not as "common" as you think it is.  Ask a bunch of people, and you'll
find that what they consider "common" isn't the same.

So, if you do this, then please define clearly what you think is OK.
For example for me:

- feel free to add patches necessary for operation
- feel free to fix constructs (like an if or case that should apply for
  something else/different/mode)
- feel free to fix typos
- please do not needlessly change style: if you do not "maintain" the
  ebuild, respect the style of the maintainer, so only add the changes
  you need, keep it minimal, respect the original even though you don't
  like it (and don't use QA as an excuse to change style)
- when you make a change, make sure you check for bugs in the following
  days, so you can cleanup yourself should there be fallout

> I mean, I do realize that 10 years ago, in the golden years of Gentoo,
> it was considered normal for developers to be like "my package, my
> fortress, don't you dare add systemd unit or I will retire" but today I
> think we're aiming for a more welcoming developer base, and I think
> we're actually going in that direction.  What I'm afraid is that some
> people will use this as an excuse to push back once again.

Not sure I have the same memories of how it used to be 10 years ago.  I
actually think it is pretty much the same as it is now, as it was then.
Different and fewer people, but still different
preferences/opinions/common sense.

> Can you really think of a case when common sense really, really wouldn't
> work?  I mean, sure, we all make mistakes but we should be able to learn
> from them and do better next time.  This also implies package
> maintainers learning that they're not the only people who will ever
> touch the package in question and starting to document the pitfalls.

Honestly, I've never been a fan of "maintainership".  It basically is
some sort of "sign" that says "beware for the dog, stay away".  However,
it's true that sometimes people really delve into a package, and thereby
know very much how it works, and what you should/should not do.
Something like LLVM is a good example, maybe.  Anyway, in such
situation, I think extreme care should be taken by non-maintainers.
Dunno how to best indicate that, and/or if that's feasible -- like you
said, it quickly ends up being an excuse for declaring a package to be


Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to