Mentors BoF at DebConf (was: Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages))
On 16 June 2010 03:21, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Tim Retout dioc...@debian.org wrote: (Advance warning: I'm interested in discussing the mentoring process at DebConf.) Please register a BoF in penta about it to give folks more advance warning. I've now submitted a BoF for DebCamp, with the intention of a follow-up BoF at DebConf proper. Of course, the penta submission is merely warning now, I guess. :) -- Tim Retout dioc...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimvdflaz2zpmgq7axxqm0cxsahrsrcve6qks...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:59:04 -0700 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:50:28AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? Ugh, what a terrible idea. DMs are by definition uploaders who have *not* yet demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the project, their capability to do unsupervised uploads of arbitrary packages. Why are you so eager to gut our QA processes? I'm not trying to undermine QA, I'm trying to get more people involved in QA instead of directing new people at new packages which become the QA workload of tomorrow. I'm basing this on the idea that some packages in QA only need small updates as the majority of the packaging work is already done. Yes, there are some that were orphaned purely because the packaging is too hard or the upstream code is just awkward but a lot are orphaned because the volunteer maintainer had a change in their real life priorities, through no fault of the package itself. Maybe there could be a way of indicating which packages in QA fall each side of such an evaluation. i.e. Orphaned-and-borked or orphaned-but-ready. Debtags might be a solution for that, with suitably renamed special QA tags or maybe comments/tags in the O: bug report. This could be similar to the low-NMU status. DM's have not yet demonstrated the capability to do unsupervised uploads of NEW packages but QA uploads can be *less* work than packaging an entirely new package. If a new package is significantly less work than fixing a few lintian issues in an orphaned package, I'd question whether the new package concerned is worth packaging in the first place. DMs should request sponsorship of QA uploads on debian-qa just like anybody else. If they consistently demonstrate their competence in this fashion, they should be recognized for this by making them full DDs - not by conferring additional rights on DMs that the DM admissions criteria aren't set up for! I think we have to consider redirecting new volunteers AWAY from assuming that their work must centre on a NEW package and make it equally (or even more) likely that new people get to learn their craft on existing, orphaned, packages. After all, these packages are the work of their peers, albeit inactive peers. If a package has been orphaned long enough that it is already under QA, it's fairly obvious that having anyone take an interest in it is better than just leaving it bit rot. Equally, I submit that getting orphaned packages updated is a more worthy goal than adding another NEW package that will become a QA package if that contributor loses interest. We need to discourage me-too packages more firmly. We also need to dissuade new contributors from taking only a narrow interest in a single new package and instead gain an understanding of the wider needs of the project. Getting new contributors to work on QA helps QA at both ends - by drawing some packages out of QA and back into teams (or out of the archive completely) and by discouraging new contributors from adding new packages merely to get something done as a contributor, thereby reducing the flow of packages into QA in the future. This way, the results of the MIA team flow back into the project as the work of new contributors. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpJnJG7ue0N8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Tim Retout wrote: On 15 June 2010 21:59, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote: Encouraging maintainers to invest their time in QA makes more sense than adding more NEW packages to become the QA workload of the future. Directing everyone at NEW is counter-productive and encourages more horrible first-time packages. I agree entirely with this goal - I'm not yet certain that allowing unrestricted QA uploads by DMs will solve that problem, although I wouldn't be against testing it out. For starters, it could only really be allowed for DMs, not any old packager, I think. So would this produce results among normal mentees? My understanding was that some DMs are interested only in the packages they already maintain, otherwise they would be in the NM queue - so this subset would be less likely to bother with orphaned packages, surely? As for the others... if the act of allowing unrestricted QA uploads would spur them to make lots of fixes, why do we not see DDs doing this all the time? There also some package maintainers such as I am, who simply do not have the time to go through the NM queue. And no, I won't even think about to adapt orphan packages, I already don't get packages I'm interested in through mentors. Fortunately, Martin Pitt now wants to help me to upload unionfs-fuse. I was already close to send a mail to this list requesting to remove this package from Debian. IMHO, it is wrong to list me as Maintainer, if it impossible to maintain it... Cheers, Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006170342.20269.bernd.schub...@fastmail.fm
Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
Hi! Am 15.06.2010 09:50, schrieb Neil Williams: OTOH if those requesting sponsorship were more open to packaging some of the orphaned packages listed under WNPP and qa.debian.org which have already been through NEW [..] What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? It's not that easy, as the current criteria for a DM upload are DMUA:Yes set AND listed as maintainer or uploader in the most recent upload to experimentatl or unstable IIRC. However, I like the idea :) Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c1743f6.2030...@schmehl.info
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:12:22 +0200 Alexander Reichle-Schmehl alexan...@schmehl.info wrote: Hi! Am 15.06.2010 09:50, schrieb Neil Williams: OTOH if those requesting sponsorship were more open to packaging some of the orphaned packages listed under WNPP and qa.debian.org which have already been through NEW [..] What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? It's not that easy, as the current criteria for a DM upload are DMUA:Yes set AND listed as maintainer or uploader in the most recent upload to experimentatl or unstable IIRC. True, but current criteria can be modified such as to assert that packa...@qa.debian.org is a special maintainer with regard to DM. All DD's are members of QA by default, it doesn't take much for that to be extended to those in the DM keyring. The primary restriction on uploads is the signing key, not necessarily the name or email address - this is especially true of QA packages which have no Maintainer: and no Uploaders: but every DD is allowed to upload with QA upload in the changelog and a valid DD signature on the .changes. However, I like the idea :) :-) -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpm5clobaAWN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:28:19 +0200 Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote: * Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org, 2010-06-15, 08:50: What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the DM upload field could also be set? If a package is neglected, it is *harder* (sometimes way harder) to maintain, which makes it *less* suitable for DMs. I disagree completely. A new package has no end of potential pitfalls and non-obvious problems which inexperienced maintainers will miss. A stale or neglected package has at least had some attention in the first place and only needs a few tweaks, not a wholesale update to the latest-greatest-cool-gizmo status. Whether a package is orphaned or not has no particular bearing on the complexity of the packaging task compared to NEW packages. Adding yet another python script or CPAN package is not useful. Fixing stuff that is already in use is more helpful. Some are more difficult than others, same with NEW packages - it is up to the maintainer to decide. At least with an orphaned package, the maintainer often has a waiting community of users. New packages might take months to get more than a dozen users. This isn't about updating the upstream code, just keeping orphaned packages ticking over on something approaching current Policy instead of something pre-dating Etch. I consider QA/adoption uploads without DD assistance unacceptable. A QA upload might just be a case of updating the Maintainer and fixing some lintian issues. You could see it fixing stuff without the hassle of writing the manpage and copyright file. Could be more appealing than a new package where everything has to be done at once. OK, there are difficult packages which are orphaned but there are difficult packages which would be new to Debian too. There's also the instant feedback, instead of waiting for the package to get through NEW. There's no need to bring orphaned packages up to DH7, migrate the packaging into git or change all the patches over to a new system and the rest; it's orphaned, just make sure it is lintian clean, close a few bugs if you can. The existing packaging may be out of date but that's fine, unless the maintainer is going to adopt the package, it can stay behind current as long as it works. *Interest* in the package is much more important than the current state of that package. Encouraging maintainers to invest their time in QA makes more sense than adding more NEW packages to become the QA workload of the future. Directing everyone at NEW is counter-productive and encourages more horrible first-time packages. At least if people spend time on QA then the bugs filed against packages in QA stand half a chance of being fixed. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpzF10ZFux4r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On 15 June 2010 21:59, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote: Encouraging maintainers to invest their time in QA makes more sense than adding more NEW packages to become the QA workload of the future. Directing everyone at NEW is counter-productive and encourages more horrible first-time packages. I agree entirely with this goal - I'm not yet certain that allowing unrestricted QA uploads by DMs will solve that problem, although I wouldn't be against testing it out. For starters, it could only really be allowed for DMs, not any old packager, I think. So would this produce results among normal mentees? My understanding was that some DMs are interested only in the packages they already maintain, otherwise they would be in the NM queue - so this subset would be less likely to bother with orphaned packages, surely? As for the others... if the act of allowing unrestricted QA uploads would spur them to make lots of fixes, why do we not see DDs doing this all the time? (Advance warning: I'm interested in discussing the mentoring process at DebConf.) -- Tim Retout dioc...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinxmtmvfpuhsi1pohers0xfzut_mln4-gxd_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Allowing QA uploads for DMs (was: A lot of pending packages)
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Tim Retout dioc...@debian.org wrote: (Advance warning: I'm interested in discussing the mentoring process at DebConf.) Please register a BoF in penta about it to give folks more advance warning. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimi55lc3p9jfnavb2pzwt0742psbcs8gklnc...@mail.gmail.com
