Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Otto Urpelainen]

Blaise Pabon kirjoitti 29.11.2021 klo 18.38:

Hi Otto

On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 7:17 AM Otto Urpelainen  wrote:


The first link is about other docs than the Package Maintainer Docs,


with some critical comments from you about the use of Antora in

docs.fp.o. The latter two are about Pagure. So if I understand
correctly, when you say that the older docs were better, you did not
mean the content, but that managing the docs with MediaWiki in the
Fedora Wiki was better than the current Antora and Pagure based approach
that used at docs.fp.o. Did I get that right?


Yes, you're correct.
I'm sorry I conflated the content question with the toolchain discussion.

Content: How to become a packager (checklist / decision tree)
It might help to step through the process and enrich the new docs.


Ah yes, the wiki Join page had a flowchart about adding a new package. I 
did not bring it over to the new docs, because it had issues:


1. Joining the Package Maintainers is not (only) about adding a new 
package, but starting the article with the diagram gave exactly that 
impression.


2. There was no caption or explanation, so it was quite unclear what the 
diagram was about. Probably because the surrounding text was living its 
own life, but the diagram remained in its original form.


I agree, such diagrams are good to have. Removing it with no replacement 
was a step backwards.


The old diagram could be meaningfully imported to "New Package Process 
for New Contributors", maybe also to "Package Review Process", I think.



ToolChain: Antora/Pagure are more aligned with the code development cycle.
Sphinx and Mediawiki are more aligned with describing practices and
cross-references.


Before I implemented the move from wiki to docs.fp.o, I did bring the 
topic up in the devel list. There were some people who thought that this 
was a bad idea. Others were supportive.


Personally, I think the system over at docs.fp.o has many advantages:

1. It is easier to make the large changes with a proper editor locally.

2. Git allows atomic commits spanning multiple pages.

3. Pull requests allow easily asking for feedback and iterating on that 
before going live.


4. It is easy to put things in categories and hierarchies at docs.fp.o, 
whereas in the extreme free structure of wiki caused materials of 
different nature become mixed up. The situation here was so bad, that 
during the move, no less than 5 FESCo policies [1,2,3,4,5] were added 
the to the FESCo docs. These were hiding in the wiki, mixed with other 
material in various degrees, editable by anyone without FESCo even 
getting notified that policies they are supposed to have define were 
being altered.


[1]: https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-request/43
[2]: https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-request/44
[3]: https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-request/45
[4]: https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-request/46
[5]: https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-request/49

Still, the greatest motivation for choosing docs.fp.o was that that is 
the current docs solution of Fedora. Choosing anything else would make 
the Package Maintainer Docs an outlier, and would prevent taking 
advantage of any available tooling for docs. For example, we now have 
online editing, localization and automatic periodic deployment without 
having to work on them separately (though I admit, I have never tried 
the former two, so I do not know how well they work in practice, if at all).


Perhaps there would be an even better solution for docs.fp.o, I do not 
know. As I see it, it is out of scope for the Package Maintainer Docs, 
which should just use what is in use distro-wide.



I would be happy to make myself useful if you have any suggestions.
The last time I just jumped in to try to do things and that didn't work
well.


I am not sure what happened, but I am sad to hear that the end result 
was not good even if you had good intentions.


Be that as it may, the Package Maintainer Docs welcome contributions. 
Since you already mentioned the lack of checklists and decision charts, 
adding such where they are needed would be great. I noticed in the links 
you sent earlier that you have some ideas how to add diagrams in 
maintainable way, having something else that just uploading bitmaps 
would be great, even if update requires some manual steps.


Otto
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Blaise Pabon]

Hi Otto

On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 7:17 AM Otto Urpelainen  wrote:

> The first link is about other docs than the Package Maintainer Docs,
>
with some critical comments from you about the use of Antora in
> docs.fp.o. The latter two are about Pagure. So if I understand
> correctly, when you say that the older docs were better, you did not
> mean the content, but that managing the docs with MediaWiki in the
> Fedora Wiki was better than the current Antora and Pagure based approach
> that used at docs.fp.o. Did I get that right?
>
Yes, you're correct.
I'm sorry I conflated the content question with the toolchain discussion.

Content: How to become a packager (checklist / decision tree)
It might help to step through the process and enrich the new docs.

ToolChain: Antora/Pagure are more aligned with the code development cycle.
Sphinx and Mediawiki are more aligned with describing practices and
cross-references.

I would be happy to make myself useful if you have any suggestions.
The last time I just jumped in to try to do things and that didn't work
well.

-Blaise


-- 
LinkedIn   |  Quora
  |  Github

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go
together.” --African
proverb
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Otto Urpelainen]

Blaise Pabon kirjoitti 26.11.2021 klo 18.01:

Hi Otto,

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 2:27 AM Otto Urpelainen  wrote:


Blaise Pabon kirjoitti 25.11.2021 klo 5.43:





When the docs were migrated, the intent was, of course, to make them
better, not worse. If things have regressed in some way, I would like to
fix them. Could you be more specific, in what ways the new docs less
useful? Is there some particular content in the retired wiki pages that
is not available at docs.fp.o, or what is the problem?


TL;DR: We could mitigate a pervasive "works-on-my-machine" anti-pattern
with a few simple measures.

(Two years earlier)
After 30 years at the fringe of Open Source, I decided to throw myself into
the Fedora community and find ways to contribute. I observed a few common
anti-patterns. "works-on-my-machine" happens when there is no distinction
between internal and external behavior. So, a developer has no guidance on
how to describe {{ process | artifact }} to an external stakeholder.


I am not sure what you are referring to here. I suspect that I 
misunderstood what you were referring to with "older docs" and "new 
docs". I thought what you referred as "new docs" were the current 
Package Maintainer Docs [1] and "older docs" were the Fedora Wiki pages 
that they were imported from (there is a list of those at [2]). I do not 
think the move between the two changed anything related to 
"works-on-my-machine anti-pattern" — unless you are talking about 
tooling, not content.


[1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/
[2]: 
https://github.com/iagorubio/fedora-docs/blob/main/issue20/package-maintainer-imports.txt



Looking at the current state, one thing I notice it that currently, the
"Joining the Package Maintainers" page barely mentions sponsorship. This
is fallout from trying to make that page sound less like you have to
submit a new package to join, previously it was discussed in the "Adding
a new package" section, which is now a separate page. I will add a note
with a link in the Joining page summary, so that part is clear from the
outset.



These links include examples.
Docs community contribution hackfest (discussion)

Write contributing guidelines in markup file and make them more visible in
a project 
[RFE] Expand the README to include "How to provide feedback"



The first link is about other docs than the Package Maintainer Docs, 
with some critical comments from you about the use of Antora in 
docs.fp.o. The latter two are about Pagure. So if I understand 
correctly, when you say that the older docs were better, you did not 
mean the content, but that managing the docs with MediaWiki in the 
Fedora Wiki was better than the current Antora and Pagure based approach 
that used at docs.fp.o. Did I get that right?


Otto
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Blaise Pabon]

Hi Otto,

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 2:27 AM Otto Urpelainen  wrote:

> Blaise Pabon kirjoitti 25.11.2021 klo 5.43:
> 


> When the docs were migrated, the intent was, of course, to make them
> better, not worse. If things have regressed in some way, I would like to
> fix them. Could you be more specific, in what ways the new docs less
> useful? Is there some particular content in the retired wiki pages that
> is not available at docs.fp.o, or what is the problem?
>
TL;DR: We could mitigate a pervasive "works-on-my-machine" anti-pattern
with a few simple measures.

(Two years earlier)
After 30 years at the fringe of Open Source, I decided to throw myself into
the Fedora community and find ways to contribute. I observed a few common
anti-patterns. "works-on-my-machine" happens when there is no distinction
between internal and external behavior. So, a developer has no guidance on
how to describe {{ process | artifact }} to an external stakeholder.


> Looking at the current state, one thing I notice it that currently, the
> "Joining the Package Maintainers" page barely mentions sponsorship. This
> is fallout from trying to make that page sound less like you have to
> submit a new package to join, previously it was discussed in the "Adding
> a new package" section, which is now a separate page. I will add a note
> with a link in the Joining page summary, so that part is clear from the
> outset.
>

These links include examples.
Docs community contribution hackfest (discussion)

Write contributing guidelines in markup file and make them more visible in
a project 
[RFE] Expand the README to include "How to provide feedback"



-- 
LinkedIn   |  Quora
  |  Github

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go
together.” --African
proverb
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Otto Urpelainen]

Blaise Pabon kirjoitti 25.11.2021 klo 5.43:

I appreciate all the constructive suggestions, particularly those that
acknowledge the, uh , inconsistencies in the documentation.


(snip)


Regarding the docs, yes the older ones are more useful.
IMHO, it would be better for the new docs to paint a more realistic picture
of the process so that newbies don't feel like there is something wrong
with them for not figuring it out.

I'm busy trying to find a job right now, so I don't expect that I'll be
able to do much wordsmithing until I have a source of income.


When the docs were migrated, the intent was, of course, to make them 
better, not worse. If things have regressed in some way, I would like to 
fix them. Could you be more specific, in what ways the new docs less 
useful? Is there some particular content in the retired wiki pages that 
is not available at docs.fp.o, or what is the problem?


Also, could you elaborate a bit, in what ways the current docs are 
unrealistic? I would like to make them more realistic.


Looking at the current state, one thing I notice it that currently, the 
"Joining the Package Maintainers" page barely mentions sponsorship. This 
is fallout from trying to make that page sound less like you have to 
submit a new package to join, previously it was discussed in the "Adding 
a new package" section, which is now a separate page. I will add a note 
with a link in the Joining page summary, so that part is clear from the 
outset.


Otto
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Blaise Pabon]

I appreciate all the constructive suggestions, particularly those that
acknowledge the, uh , inconsistencies in the documentation.

I'll keep plugging away. I dropped into the infra office hours and got
someone to offer to review my PR. There are a few python packages I will
eventually maintain also.

Regarding the docs, yes the older ones are more useful.
IMHO, it would be better for the new docs to paint a more realistic picture
of the process so that newbies don't feel like there is something wrong
with them for not figuring it out.

I'm busy trying to find a job right now, so I don't expect that I'll be
able to do much wordsmithing until I have a source of income.

Cheers,
Blaise

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021, 1:34 PM Stephen Snow  wrote:

> On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 15:08 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >
>
> > That's why I gave a link to the old version from the wiki history
> > before it was replaced by a pointer to the new page.
> >
> It did help for some info. Thank you.
> > > >
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group=619444
> > > >
> > > > Basically you need to find somebody to sponsor you as a
> > > > packager - normally that happens as part of having your first
> > > > package review but obviously that doesn't work when you want
> > > > to take over an existing package.
> > >
> > > So you see what I was talking about so many (years?!?!) ago, then
> > > recently too on this list. It is a common thing it seems that once
> > > a
> > > person steps up to ask for sponsorship something seems to happen. I
> > > am
> > > struck by the first line of your response "You say you have "asked
> > > to
> > > become a packager" but what exactly do you mean by that?" Well,
> > > quite
> > > simply what I stated, but yet I am being questioned about my
> > > sincereity
> > > and credibility immediately.
> >
> > I wasn't questioning your credibility, I was just confused because
> > there's no formal place to lodge such a request as far as I know
> > other
> > than a review ticket blocking FE-SPONSOR which doesn't apply here.
> >
> > I was worried that you had filed some sort of request somewhere
> > that nobody was looking.
> >
>
> So maybe we have inadvertently found a crack in the process for
> onboarding package maintainers.
>
> > > So back to what I was trying to say in my conversation here about
> > > some
> > > tool for assessing the prospective newbies like me who want to help
> > > but
> > > need a sponsor, I was thinking of an app that tests your knowledge
> > > and
> > > the discussion went towards a generic test package to show
> > > packaging
> > > knowledge with, then make sponsoring come easier for sponsors.
> > > Because
> > > this seems to be really the crux of the matter, trust or lack of
> > > it.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any previous discussions. I was just answering
> > the questions you asked in your post today.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> Again, thank you for taking the time to respond. FWIW I recognize your
> name from RH and Fedora for some time, ie years, not trying to make
> anyone feel old but it is what it is. The previous discussion was
> around onbarding new package maintainers, and the impetus is directly
> related to the published orphaned packages, and trying to make them not
> be orphaned if needed still. There is a disconnect between the position
> taken in the documents around becoming a packager that seems to imply
> it is as easy as doing steps #1, #2, then #3, which it isn't.
> Also worth noting is that there is a "dummy onboarding package" that
> was started by someone on this list as a result of the conversation but
> I haven't found any continuation of the idea.
>
> Regards.
> Stephen
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: packaging group documentation wiki redirect [was Re: Trying to take an orphaned package]

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:54:43AM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> >{{#fedoradocs: 
> >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/}}
> >... but we don't have a consistent policy about when to use it.
> 
> Should this be read as "I would prefer flagging handle pages that
> were moved from wiki to docs.fp.o with the redirect macro"? I added

Read it as "Matthew has that preference, but there isn't a universal
consensus or policy". :)

I've been adding it for pages which are direct 1:1 matches AND where it's
clearly user-focused content or guide-like contributor docs.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: packaging group documentation wiki redirect [was Re: Trying to take an orphaned package]

[Otto Urpelainen]

Matthew Miller kirjoitti 21.11.2021 klo 20.45:

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 04:27:18PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:

That page seems substantially (if not completely?) identical to the current
doc at 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/


Ah you're quite right. That was a google fail on my part - the search
that I did on "fedora become a packager" grouped that wiki page under
the other docs page I mentioned and I didn't notice that wasn't the
page the wiki linked to.


There exists a magic wiki macro one can add to the top of a page which
automatically redirects it to the docs (which would probably eventually get
google pointing there too). It would be like this:


{{#fedoradocs: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/}}

... but we don't have a consistent policy about when to use it.


Should this be read as "I would prefer flagging handle pages that were 
moved from wiki to docs.fp.o with the redirect macro"? I added the 
current notes to all pages that were moved to the Package Maintainer 
Docs, there was discussion about using the redirect macro with no strong 
argument either way, so I just picked what the Packaging Guidelines are 
doing. I can switch all of them to use the redirect, if that is the 
preferred way.


Otto
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 21/11/2021 13:11, Stephen Snow wrote:


And I login with my FAS ID and cannot "Take" the package since I am not
a packager.

So I ask again what steps am I missing here? I want to take over
packaging something that is about to be removed from Fedora Linux since
it has been orphaned, I have signed the agreements, I have asked to
become a packager, and this is actually the second package I am trying
to take over.


You say you have "asked to become a packager" but what exactly
do you mean by that?

The official documentation on becoming a packager is here:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/

But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
at it from the position of submitting a new package:

https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group=619444

Basically you need to find somebody to sponsor you as a
packager - normally that happens as part of having your first
package review but obviously that doesn't work when you want
to take over an existing package.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 21/11/2021 15:01, Stephen Snow wrote:


But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
at it from the position of submitting a new package:


And it tells me to read a document that doesn't apparently exist
anymore.


That's why I gave a link to the old version from the wiki history
before it was replaced by a pointer to the new page.


https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group=619444

Basically you need to find somebody to sponsor you as a
packager - normally that happens as part of having your first
package review but obviously that doesn't work when you want
to take over an existing package.


So you see what I was talking about so many (years?!?!) ago, then
recently too on this list. It is a common thing it seems that once a
person steps up to ask for sponsorship something seems to happen. I am
struck by the first line of your response "You say you have "asked to
become a packager" but what exactly do you mean by that?" Well, quite
simply what I stated, but yet I am being questioned about my sincereity
and credibility immediately.


I wasn't questioning your credibility, I was just confused because
there's no formal place to lodge such a request as far as I know other
than a review ticket blocking FE-SPONSOR which doesn't apply here.

I was worried that you had filed some sort of request somewhere
that nobody was looking.


So back to what I was trying to say in my conversation here about some
tool for assessing the prospective newbies like me who want to help but
need a sponsor, I was thinking of an app that tests your knowledge and
the discussion went towards a generic test package to show packaging
knowledge with, then make sponsoring come easier for sponsors. Because
this seems to be really the crux of the matter, trust or lack of it.


I'm not aware of any previous discussions. I was just answering
the questions you asked in your post today.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Otto Urpelainen]

Matthew Miller kirjoitti 21.11.2021 klo 18.18:

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 08:11:19AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:

So I am back here to ask again if I can take a package on that is
currently orphaned as per
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5FCP5OSV6XXFCAXN5KPKQFBCDLGJSRB6/

And I login with my FAS ID and cannot "Take" the package since I am not
a packager.

So I ask again what steps am I missing here? I want to take over
packaging something that is about to be removed from Fedora Linux since
it has been orphaned, I have signed the agreements, I have asked to
become a packager, and this is actually the second package I am trying
to take over.


I don't think we have a good process for the situation you're in. If the
package you were interested in were entirely new, or if you were reinstating
a package which wsa retired (the step beyond "orphan"), you'd file and go
through the package review process in bugzilla, and at that point if you
hadn't found a sponsor yet, the docs suggest that the sponsor's ticketing
system is the next step.

But without those first steps, how do you get there?

Probably the most straightforward is to pick one of the other routes -- ask
to become a co-maintainer of an existing package, or find something new
you're interested in. Or, go through a number of code reviews for similar
packages and get to know the folks who are working on those, at which point
it should be easy to ask them personally to sponsor you.


A similar situation appeared on devel just recently, where somebody 
without packager rights was interested in taking an orphan package. That 
earlier thread inspired me to submit a pull request for the docs, 
explaining how it can be done [1].


I do not know it is has ever been agreed that this specific case should 
be handled in that way. But I got my first package by adopting an 
orphan, and that is how I got the packager access.


Otto

[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/pull-request/45
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Stephen Snow]

On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 11:18 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
-snip-
> 
> I don't think we have a good process for the situation you're in. If
> the
> package you were interested in were entirely new, or if you were
> reinstating
> a package which wsa retired (the step beyond "orphan"), you'd file
> and go
> through the package review process in bugzilla, and at that point if
> you
> hadn't found a sponsor yet, the docs suggest that the sponsor's
> ticketing
> system is the next step.
> 
So what I have figured out from the experiences of others who have
shared with me is I can just do a PR for the fix I think will work for
said package and submit it that way. Thus support in an unoffical
capacity, which is entirely acceptable in my opinion, but it isn't a
documented route nor a formal one, just one that works. 
> But without those first steps, how do you get there?
> 
> Probably the most straightforward is to pick one of the other routes
> -- ask
> to become a co-maintainer of an existing package, or find something
> new
> you're interested in. Or, go through a number of code reviews for
> similar
> packages and get to know the folks who are working on those, at which
> point
> it should be easy to ask them personally to sponsor you.
> 
I guess that is along the lines of what I was saying above and what
others have suggested to me in the past on this topic.

> I know this feels like kind of _a lot_, when you just want to help
> out by
> picking up something that's dropped. But the thing is, once you're in
> the
> pcakaging group, you have a lot of latitude to make a lot of
> technical
> decisions. It's not so much a matter of "do we trust you as a person"
> as it
> is "have you demonstrated that you understand a lot of the nuance and
> complication of packaging and working in our environment."
> 
Yeah so I get this without question and understand emphatically even.
In what I do (Industrial Automation and Machine building) you can spend
years doing the "same thing" differently each time.
> If you'd prefer a less-heavy way to just make a package available, we
> have
> that too, in Copr. There, you can just get started and do it.

Been thinking about that very thing for PLC4X maybe.
> 
> 
> I do think we need to help build a greater pool of people with the
> required
> skills, time, and ability to mentor new packagers -- sponsorship with
> support, not just as a checkbox. We've got some awesome folks who do
> that,
> but... it _is_ a special skill and _definitely_ time consuming. So
> that's an
> area I know we need to invest in. 
I still think a lot of what Mentors and Sponsors could be satisfied the
applicant had a particular set of abilities if they had to get through
some form of app based intruction and test possibly even broken down
into the separate steps of packaging maintenance. With feedback to the
newb and validation testing that would give at least a level of
confidence to the community too. Let's be honest, we want involvement
but all of us want a working Distro more than making it "easier" to get
involved. And getting involved is what we're discussing here, whether
me or others feeling like. To my way of thinking, it's not that the
complexity is a deterent, normally the opposite for most technically
oriented people AFAICT. It is really the lack of a map, which itself
doesn't need to be a hand held journey, just sign posts. Maybe this is
documentation, but I am really reluctant to just chalk it up to that
entirely. So we are talking the same I think but from the opposite side
of the discussion, and this does seem to be the way everyone feels when
this topic comes up.

> But... I hope the above helps explain how
> things are now in practice.
> 
> 
Yes, it is clear in some ways as to why it is done the way it is done
WRT the packages themselves and the requirements of Fedora Linux,
licensing included. What is not clear is how to get from the starting
point most of us have. Which is not hired by RH, or not working at a
company that specifically uses Fedora Linux as part of their business
model. Don't take that wrong either, I entirely appreciate RH et al for
their much needed support, as I would imagine the greater community
does too. But I also appreciate the efforts of each and every non-
business related contributor (ie they don't get paid directly to work
on that thing for Fedora Linux), because quite frankly without them
there likely wouldn't be a Fedora Linux and we'd just be running RHEL
community, so not so delightedly near bleeding edge.

In any case I will keep plugging away, maybe just try to get it to
build and issue a PR with my solution. But it's currently orphaned with
no maintainer AFAIK.

Regards,
Stephen

> -- 
> Matthew Miller
> 
> Fedora Project Leader
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> 

packaging group documentation wiki redirect [was Re: Trying to take an orphaned package]

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 04:27:18PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >That page seems substantially (if not completely?) identical to the current
> >doc at 
> >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/
> 
> Ah you're quite right. That was a google fail on my part - the search
> that I did on "fedora become a packager" grouped that wiki page under
> the other docs page I mentioned and I didn't notice that wasn't the
> page the wiki linked to.

There exists a magic wiki macro one can add to the top of a page which
automatically redirects it to the docs (which would probably eventually get
google pointing there too). It would be like this:


{{#fedoradocs: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/}}

... but we don't have a consistent policy about when to use it.


[cc'ing docs list]


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Stephen Snow]

On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 15:08 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> 

> That's why I gave a link to the old version from the wiki history
> before it was replaced by a pointer to the new page.
> 
It did help for some info. Thank you.
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group=619444
> > > 
> > > Basically you need to find somebody to sponsor you as a
> > > packager - normally that happens as part of having your first
> > > package review but obviously that doesn't work when you want
> > > to take over an existing package.
> > 
> > So you see what I was talking about so many (years?!?!) ago, then
> > recently too on this list. It is a common thing it seems that once
> > a
> > person steps up to ask for sponsorship something seems to happen. I
> > am
> > struck by the first line of your response "You say you have "asked
> > to
> > become a packager" but what exactly do you mean by that?" Well,
> > quite
> > simply what I stated, but yet I am being questioned about my
> > sincereity
> > and credibility immediately.
> 
> I wasn't questioning your credibility, I was just confused because
> there's no formal place to lodge such a request as far as I know
> other
> than a review ticket blocking FE-SPONSOR which doesn't apply here.
> 
> I was worried that you had filed some sort of request somewhere
> that nobody was looking.
> 

So maybe we have inadvertently found a crack in the process for
onboarding package maintainers.

> > So back to what I was trying to say in my conversation here about
> > some
> > tool for assessing the prospective newbies like me who want to help
> > but
> > need a sponsor, I was thinking of an app that tests your knowledge
> > and
> > the discussion went towards a generic test package to show
> > packaging
> > knowledge with, then make sponsoring come easier for sponsors.
> > Because
> > this seems to be really the crux of the matter, trust or lack of
> > it.
> 
> I'm not aware of any previous discussions. I was just answering
> the questions you asked in your post today.
> 
> Tom
> 
Again, thank you for taking the time to respond. FWIW I recognize your
name from RH and Fedora for some time, ie years, not trying to make
anyone feel old but it is what it is. The previous discussion was
around onbarding new package maintainers, and the impetus is directly
related to the published orphaned packages, and trying to make them not
be orphaned if needed still. There is a disconnect between the position
taken in the documents around becoming a packager that seems to imply
it is as easy as doing steps #1, #2, then #3, which it isn't. 
Also worth noting is that there is a "dummy onboarding package" that
was started by someone on this list as a result of the conversation but
I haven't found any continuation of the idea.

Regards.
Stephen
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 21/11/2021 16:06, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:01:00AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:

Thanks read that back then.


But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
at it from the position of submitting a new package:


And it tells me to read a document that doesn't apparently exist
anymore.

https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group=619444


That page seems substantially (if not completely?) identical to the current
doc at 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/


Ah you're quite right. That was a google fail on my part - the search
that I did on "fedora become a packager" grouped that wiki page under
the other docs page I mentioned and I didn't notice that wasn't the
page the wiki linked to.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 08:11:19AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> So I am back here to ask again if I can take a package on that is
> currently orphaned as per
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5FCP5OSV6XXFCAXN5KPKQFBCDLGJSRB6/
> 
> And I login with my FAS ID and cannot "Take" the package since I am not
> a packager. 
> 
> So I ask again what steps am I missing here? I want to take over
> packaging something that is about to be removed from Fedora Linux since
> it has been orphaned, I have signed the agreements, I have asked to
> become a packager, and this is actually the second package I am trying
> to take over. 

I don't think we have a good process for the situation you're in. If the
package you were interested in were entirely new, or if you were reinstating
a package which wsa retired (the step beyond "orphan"), you'd file and go
through the package review process in bugzilla, and at that point if you
hadn't found a sponsor yet, the docs suggest that the sponsor's ticketing
system is the next step.

But without those first steps, how do you get there?

Probably the most straightforward is to pick one of the other routes -- ask
to become a co-maintainer of an existing package, or find something new
you're interested in. Or, go through a number of code reviews for similar
packages and get to know the folks who are working on those, at which point
it should be easy to ask them personally to sponsor you.

I know this feels like kind of _a lot_, when you just want to help out by
picking up something that's dropped. But the thing is, once you're in the
pcakaging group, you have a lot of latitude to make a lot of technical
decisions. It's not so much a matter of "do we trust you as a person" as it
is "have you demonstrated that you understand a lot of the nuance and
complication of packaging and working in our environment."

If you'd prefer a less-heavy way to just make a package available, we have
that too, in Copr. There, you can just get started and do it.


I do think we need to help build a greater pool of people with the required
skills, time, and ability to mentor new packagers -- sponsorship with
support, not just as a checkbox. We've got some awesome folks who do that,
but... it _is_ a special skill and _definitely_ time consuming. So that's an
area I know we need to invest in. But... I hope the above helps explain how
things are now in practice.


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:01:00AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> Thanks read that back then.
> 
> > But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
> > in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
> > at it from the position of submitting a new package:
> > 
> And it tells me to read a document that doesn't apparently exist
> anymore.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group=619444

That page seems substantially (if not completely?) identical to the current
doc at 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Trying to take an orphaned package

[Stephen Snow]

On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 13:55 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
-snip-
> You say you have "asked to become a packager" but what exactly
> do you mean by that?
> 
I've asked to be sponsored before.

> The official documentation on becoming a packager is here:
> 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/
> 
Thanks read that back then.

> But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
> in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
> at it from the position of submitting a new package:
> 
And it tells me to read a document that doesn't apparently exist
anymore.
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group=619444
> 
> Basically you need to find somebody to sponsor you as a
> packager - normally that happens as part of having your first
> package review but obviously that doesn't work when you want
> to take over an existing package.
> 
> Tom
> 
So you see what I was talking about so many (years?!?!) ago, then
recently too on this list. It is a common thing it seems that once a
person steps up to ask for sponsorship something seems to happen. I am
struck by the first line of your response "You say you have "asked to
become a packager" but what exactly do you mean by that?" Well, quite
simply what I stated, but yet I am being questioned about my sincereity
and credibility immediately.

The documentation referrals are good, but I have read the doc's and can
read them while in process of doing tasks such as packaging, that's
sort of what higher education is supposed to do for us, teach us how to
research the technical aspects of whatever task we face. 

So back to what I was trying to say in my conversation here about some
tool for assessing the prospective newbies like me who want to help but
need a sponsor, I was thinking of an app that tests your knowledge and
the discussion went towards a generic test package to show packaging
knowledge with, then make sponsoring come easier for sponsors. Because
this seems to be really the crux of the matter, trust or lack of it.

And I really do want to help with this package since ti seems to be a
dependency for some others and it is important to me to see Fedora
Linux remain a usable distribution (entirely selfishly here). 

Regards;
Stephen 
(FAS ID jakfr...@fedoraproject.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Trying to take an orphaned package

[Stephen Snow]

Hello,
So I am back here to ask again if I can take a package on that is
currently orphaned as per
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5FCP5OSV6XXFCAXN5KPKQFBCDLGJSRB6/

And I login with my FAS ID and cannot "Take" the package since I am not
a packager. 

So I ask again what steps am I missing here? I want to take over
packaging something that is about to be removed from Fedora Linux since
it has been orphaned, I have signed the agreements, I have asked to
become a packager, and this is actually the second package I am trying
to take over. 

The package I am interested in taking/sharing maintaining with is
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/Java-WebSocket

I think it is likely a maven plugin issue just looking at the root log.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Stephen
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure