Re: salvaging packages, was Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Philipp Kern]

On 18.04.2018 07:09, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Paul Wise wrote:
> 
>> I'm guessing you are referring to this file?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> infinote://gobby.debian.org/debconf17/bof/if_you_love_a_package_let_it_go
>> https://gobby.debian.org/export/debconf17/bof/if_you_love_a_package_let_it_go
> 
> I didn't know there existed URLs to particular gobby documents.  Thank
> you!

FWIW, I'd still encourage people to preserve those documents somewhere
more permanent with a good revision history, like copying them to the
wiki after you are done with the conference/sprint.

Kind regards and thanks
Philipp Kern

Re: salvaging packages, was Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[gustavo panizzo]

Hi

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:09:31AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:

Hello gustavo,

On Tue, Apr 17 2018, gustavo panizzo wrote:


Besides the thread, are you aware of anything written down somewhere?


Yes.  Take a look on gobby (apt-get install gobby and connect to
gobby.debian.org).


Thanks, I'll read it. However my question was if there is anything
"official" we can redirect people to


--
IRC: gfa
GPG: 0X44BB1BA79F6C6333

Re: salvaging packages, was Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Paul Wise wrote:

> I'm guessing you are referring to this file?

Yes.

> infinote://gobby.debian.org/debconf17/bof/if_you_love_a_package_let_it_go
> https://gobby.debian.org/export/debconf17/bof/if_you_love_a_package_let_it_go

I didn't know there existed URLs to particular gobby documents.  Thank
you!

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: salvaging packages, was Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Paul Wise]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:

> Yes.  Take a look on gobby (apt-get install gobby and connect to
> gobby.debian.org).

I'm guessing you are referring to this file?

infinote://gobby.debian.org/debconf17/bof/if_you_love_a_package_let_it_go
https://gobby.debian.org/export/debconf17/bof/if_you_love_a_package_let_it_go

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: salvaging packages, was Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Sean Whitton]

Hello gustavo,

On Tue, Apr 17 2018, gustavo panizzo wrote:

> Besides the thread, are you aware of anything written down somewhere?

Yes.  Take a look on gobby (apt-get install gobby and connect to
gobby.debian.org).

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

salvaging packages, was Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[gustavo panizzo]

Hi

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:43:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
[snip]


I remember that this discussion comes up quite regularly (no statistic
but to my feeling once a year).  I'd love if we could give fix rules to
yes, yes, yes. I remember this conversation starting and fading every  
year or so (maybe each release cycle?. It doesn't matter)



the process of salvaging a package (or am I missing that this was just
done).  I think the preconditions should contain something like:

 (
  * RC buggy (mandatory feature for salvaging a package)


I'd put a note that discourages people from increasing the severity of   
a bug to RC and then take over the package maintenance

 or
  * No uploads for > 365 days *and* lagging behind upstream
 )
 and
  * Public attempt to contact the former maintainer (be it as
response to the RC bug or for instance CCed to debian-devel
list)

It should be also mandatory that the salvaged package gets Vcs-fields
pointing to salsa.debian.org to enable any interested person to


I'd go even further and require a specific workflow to be followed or a
choice between 2-3 workflows. (e.g. don't switch d/rules to cdbs, use

git)


contribute.  The former Maintainer may not be removed from d/control.
If the salvage is done by a team that should be used as maintainer and
the old maintainer moved to Uploaders.  The changelog owner of the
salvage upload should be added to Uploaders in any case to take over
responsibility for the work.

Opinions?


After the RC bug is open some time should be allowed to the maintainer to
act.
Just putting a number out there, 1 month after the package is removed from
testing _without_ activity in the bug from the maintainer process [1] could 
start.


On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 04:11:13PM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote:

[snip]


Opinions?


I would suggest we exclude NMUs from "No uploads for > 365 days" requirement.


agreed



The person who want to salvage the package probably should also wait for two
weeks after initial public contact, then send another public email, wait for
another two weeks, send another public notification email before doing actual
salvaging efforts (moving packaging repo, uploading packages, etc). Idea
copied from QA/MIA process (https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/MIATeam).

[1] ^^

agreed, better to re-use established procedures


On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:26:08AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
[snip]

copied from QA/MIA process 
(https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/MIATeam).


I know that I am someone who also lacks time quite often. But still, 
this kills a lot of velocity and I wonder how many people will be 
motivated enough to follow up through a whole month of waiting. On the 
other hand if that gives you a blanket "it's now yours, do with it as 
you see fit, including taking over ownership", maybe that's not so 
bad.

I think it strikes a balance, when you want to work on somebody else's
package you want to do it now, most likely, because you need the package
to be in good shape.
But at the same time you don't want to take a 2 weeks holiday without
computer to come back and find your packages under someone else's ownership

And still, 1-3 month is faster than a maintainer that may never come back



(There's of course also the question of VAC notices to crawl, though. 

What if before going in a long VAC (we are potentially talking about
1 year) the maintainer opens a bug in all its packages signaling that
he won't be around for a year and that people should not take over 
his packages.

That bug would open the door for 0 delay NMU

If someone went away for a longer period of time with an intent to 
come back, it should be fair game to fix the package and own related 
breakage but obviously not to just hijack it away from the original 
maintainer.)


how do you know that person is coming back if it never announces it?


On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:58:59AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
[snip]


Was mentioned on the salvaging packages BoF at Montreal:  
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/09/msg00654.html


Besides the thread, are you aware of anything written down somewhere?

--
IRC: gfa
GPG: 0X44BB1BA79F6C6333

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Andreas,

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:43:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I remember that this discussion comes up quite regularly (no statistic
> but to my feeling once a year).  I'd love if we could give fix rules to
> the process of salvaging a package (or am I missing that this was just
> done).  I think the preconditions should contain something like: 

>   (
>* RC buggy (mandatory feature for salvaging a package)
>   or
>* No uploads for > 365 days *and* lagging behind upstream
>   )

No opinion on the specific numbers here.

>   and
>* Public attempt to contact the former maintainer (be it as
>  response to the RC bug or for instance CCed to debian-devel
>  list)

+1, absolutely a requirement that the salvage process includes cc:ing the
existing maintainer on a public post, making clear the poster's intent to
take over the package and the rationale (debian-qa@lists exists for this).

> It should be also mandatory that the salvaged package gets Vcs-fields
> pointing to salsa.debian.org to enable any interested person to
> contribute.

No, it should not be mandatory.

>  The former Maintainer may not be removed from d/control.

Absolutely, emphatically, NO.

One of the few benefits package maintainers receive from their package
maintenance work is their reputation.  While a package in line for salvaging
is probably not doing anything to benefit the maintainer's reputation, any
impact on the maintainer's reputation is still under their control.  By
leaving the previous maintainer in debian/control, you are causing that
maintainer to be associated, without their consent, with whatever packaging
changes the "salvager" is making.  It may be good, it may be bad, it doesn't
matter - what matters is that they have not given their consent, and it is
wrong to list them as a "maintainer" in an arrangement they have not
consented to.

If you want them to remain listed as the maintainer, there's a process for
that already - non-maintainer uploads.  People can do as many of those as
they want.  Or, they can go through a salvage process which is honest about
the reality - the previous maintainer is no longer doing the work, and the
community has handed the package over to someone else who is willing to do
the work.  But it's just wrong to pretend that a package is "team"
maintained without the consent of one of the members of the "team".

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Ian Campbell]

On Mon, 2018-04-16 at 09:00 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Fixing the package when it was removed from testing with RC bugs seems
> entirely reasonable.  What bothers me is just adding onself as
> comaintainer without any discussion, and thus making that upload not an
> NMU.
> 
> By all means NMU to fix the RC bugs.  By all means reach out to the
> maintainer and ask, if you want to be comaintainer.  But even if you have
> the absolute best of intentions, a lot of people are going to react poorly
> to having someone just upload their package while adding themselves as a
> comaintainer,

Not just as a comaintainer according to https://salsa.debian.org/debian
/gjots2/commit/202ae3f586cbe3a7867b881389382d3ee75b39a9 which relegated
the previous maintainer to Uploaders.

There were half a dozen commits before that, starting as NMUs, then
adding the comaintainer, then another handful of changes culminating in
the above but all on the same day 

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gjots2/commits/master

Ian.

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Russ Allbery]

Jeremy Bicha  writes:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Gert Wollny  wrote:

>> So IMO, the right appoach for Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro would
>> have been to do a NMU with the usual delay

> The Debian Developer's Reference says that a 0-day NMU is appropriate
> for an RC bug older than 7 days with no developer response:

> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.html#nmu

> https://bugs.debian.org/876571

Yes.

Fixing the package when it was removed from testing with RC bugs seems
entirely reasonable.  What bothers me is just adding onself as
comaintainer without any discussion, and thus making that upload not an
NMU.

By all means NMU to fix the RC bugs.  By all means reach out to the
maintainer and ask, if you want to be comaintainer.  But even if you have
the absolute best of intentions, a lot of people are going to react poorly
to having someone just upload their package while adding themselves as a
comaintainer, and it seems very avoidable.  (Maybe there was more
discussion behind the scenes than has so far materialized in this thread,
of course.)

I suspect this was just a miscommunication, but the NMU process is spelled
out to try to avoid exactly this miscommunication, and also because it
provides a lot of signal for figuring out what packages do need a change
of maintainers.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Jeremy Bicha]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Gert Wollny  wrote:
> So IMO, the right appoach for Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro would
> have been to do a NMU with the usual delay

The Debian Developer's Reference says that a 0-day NMU is appropriate
for an RC bug older than 7 days with no developer response:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.html#nmu

https://bugs.debian.org/876571

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Gert Wollny]

Am Montag, den 16.04.2018, 09:58 +0200 schrieb Tobias Frost:
> 
> Was mentioned on the salvaging packages BoF at Montreal:  
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/09/msg00654.html
> 
Indeed, and I think one of the key points in that proposalo is that the
last upload was an NMU - and as far as I can see there was none.

So IMO, the right appoach for Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro would
have been to do a NMU with the usual delay, and offer co-
maintainership. 

Best, 
Gert

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Philipp Kern]

On 2018-04-16 10:11, Boyuan Yang wrote:
I would suggest we exclude NMUs from "No uploads for > 365 days" 
requirement.


The person who want to salvage the package probably should also wait 
for two
weeks after initial public contact, then send another public email, 
wait for
another two weeks, send another public notification email before doing 
actual
salvaging efforts (moving packaging repo, uploading packages, etc). 
Idea
copied from QA/MIA process 
(https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/MIATeam).


I know that I am someone who also lacks time quite often. But still, 
this kills a lot of velocity and I wonder how many people will be 
motivated enough to follow up through a whole month of waiting. On the 
other hand if that gives you a blanket "it's now yours, do with it as 
you see fit, including taking over ownership", maybe that's not so bad.


(There's of course also the question of VAC notices to crawl, though. If 
someone went away for a longer period of time with an intent to come 
back, it should be fair game to fix the package and own related breakage 
but obviously not to just hijack it away from the original maintainer.)


Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Tobias Frost]

Am 16. April 2018 09:43:10 MESZ schrieb Andreas Tille :
>Hi,
>
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:10:34AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman writes:
>> > Personally, I think people should be more annoyed at the people
>doing
>> > the hijacking than the one they did it to.
>> 
>> I thought this is called "salvage" now?
>
>I remember that this discussion comes up quite regularly (no statistic
>but to my feeling once a year).  I'd love if we could give fix rules to
>the process of salvaging a package (or am I missing that this was just
>done).  I think the preconditions should contain something like: 
>
>  (
>   * RC buggy (mandatory feature for salvaging a package)
>  or
>   * No uploads for > 365 days *and* lagging behind upstream
>  )
>  and
>   * Public attempt to contact the former maintainer (be it as
> response to the RC bug or for instance CCed to debian-devel
> list)
>
>It should be also mandatory that the salvaged package gets Vcs-fields
>pointing to salsa.debian.org to enable any interested person to
>contribute.  The former Maintainer may not be removed from d/control.
>If the salvage is done by a team that should be used as maintainer and
>the old maintainer moved to Uploaders.  The changelog owner of the
>salvage upload should be added to Uploaders in any case to take over
>responsibility for the work.
>
>Opinions?
>
>Kind regards
>
>   Andreas.

Was mentioned on the salvaging packages BoF at Montreal:  
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/09/msg00654.html

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Boyuan Yang]

在 2018年4月16日星期一 CST 下午3:43:10，Andreas Tille 写道：
> I remember that this discussion comes up quite regularly (no statistic
> but to my feeling once a year).  I'd love if we could give fix rules to
> the process of salvaging a package (or am I missing that this was just
> done).  I think the preconditions should contain something like:
> 
>   (
>* RC buggy (mandatory feature for salvaging a package)
>   or
>* No uploads for > 365 days *and* lagging behind upstream
>   )
>   and
>* Public attempt to contact the former maintainer (be it as
>  response to the RC bug or for instance CCed to debian-devel
>  list)
> 
> It should be also mandatory that the salvaged package gets Vcs-fields
> pointing to salsa.debian.org to enable any interested person to
> contribute.  The former Maintainer may not be removed from d/control.
> If the salvage is done by a team that should be used as maintainer and
> the old maintainer moved to Uploaders.  The changelog owner of the
> salvage upload should be added to Uploaders in any case to take over
> responsibility for the work.
> 
> Opinions?

I would suggest we exclude NMUs from "No uploads for > 365 days" requirement.

The person who want to salvage the package probably should also wait for two 
weeks after initial public contact, then send another public email, wait for 
another two weeks, send another public notification email before doing actual 
salvaging efforts (moving packaging repo, uploading packages, etc). Idea 
copied from QA/MIA process (https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/MIATeam).

--
Regards,
Boyuan Yang

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Geert Stappers]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:34:34AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On April 16, 2018 7:10:34 AM UTC, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> >Scott Kitterman writes:
> >> Personally, I think people should be more annoyed at the people doing
> >> the hijacking than the one they did it to.
> >
> >I thought this is called "salvage" now?
> >
> >There might have been some miscommunications, but given an acceptable
> >alternative is just requesting the removal of a package with open RC
> >bugs that hasn't been uploaded for a time, isn't just salvaging the
> >package by adding oneself as a maintainer better?
> >
> >And if this is the preferred outcome, shouldn't the salvaging be
> >"easier" than just requesting removal (which is just one bug report
> >away)?
> 
> I'd think an attempt to contact the maintainer first would be a
> prerequisite to it potentially being salvage and not a hijack.
> 
> Perhaps they attempted and failed and it was only miscommunication,
> but neither of them have spoken up yet, so we don't know.
 
Indeed we don't know about communication attempts on upload the package.

I do hope that this escalation learns us to file bugs like

 Subject: re-enter testing
 
 Package: gjots2
 Version: 2.4.1-2

 Hi,

 Previous upload of gjots2 was done 4 years ago.
 And removed from testing 5 months ago.
 
 This bugreport is to announce (and document)
 my intention doing an upload.




Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Leven en laten leven

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Andreas Tille]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:10:34AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > Personally, I think people should be more annoyed at the people doing
> > the hijacking than the one they did it to.
> 
> I thought this is called "salvage" now?

I remember that this discussion comes up quite regularly (no statistic
but to my feeling once a year).  I'd love if we could give fix rules to
the process of salvaging a package (or am I missing that this was just
done).  I think the preconditions should contain something like: 

  (
   * RC buggy (mandatory feature for salvaging a package)
  or
   * No uploads for > 365 days *and* lagging behind upstream
  )
  and
   * Public attempt to contact the former maintainer (be it as
 response to the RC bug or for instance CCed to debian-devel
 list)

It should be also mandatory that the salvaged package gets Vcs-fields
pointing to salsa.debian.org to enable any interested person to
contribute.  The former Maintainer may not be removed from d/control.
If the salvage is done by a team that should be used as maintainer and
the old maintainer moved to Uploaders.  The changelog owner of the
salvage upload should be added to Uploaders in any case to take over
responsibility for the work.

Opinions?

Kind regards

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Scott Kitterman]

On April 16, 2018 7:10:34 AM UTC, Ansgar Burchardt  wrote:
>Scott Kitterman writes:
>> Personally, I think people should be more annoyed at the people doing
>> the hijacking than the one they did it to.
>
>I thought this is called "salvage" now?
>
>There might have been some miscommunications, but given an acceptable
>alternative is just requesting the removal of a package with open RC
>bugs that hasn't been uploaded for a time, isn't just salvaging the
>package by adding oneself as a maintainer better?
>
>And if this is the preferred outcome, shouldn't the salvaging be
>"easier" than just requesting removal (which is just one bug report
>away)?

I'd think an attempt to contact the maintainer first would be a prerequisite to 
it potentially being salvage and not a hijack.

Perhaps they attempted and failed and it was only miscommunication, but neither 
of them have spoken up yet, so we don't know.

Scott K

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro salvaged my package

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Scott Kitterman writes:
> Personally, I think people should be more annoyed at the people doing
> the hijacking than the one they did it to.

I thought this is called "salvage" now?

There might have been some miscommunications, but given an acceptable
alternative is just requesting the removal of a package with open RC
bugs that hasn't been uploaded for a time, isn't just salvaging the
package by adding oneself as a maintainer better?

And if this is the preferred outcome, shouldn't the salvaging be
"easier" than just requesting removal (which is just one bug report
away)?

Ansgar