Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/06/2010 10:26 PM, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: Similarly my package perl-perlilog is now part of RHEL-6, I haven't got any email from its RH maintainer whether he cares to co-maintain it with me on fedora as well. Where is that sense of friendship Fedora once had ? This is disgusting ! Firstly, I was surprised that in RHEL are some perl modules, which I don't already own in Fedora. So I didn't check. Secondly, I'm not him. If you want, you can add me as a co-maintainer, but I prefer check new bugs and changes in perl mailing list. Regards, Marcela -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:21 PM, seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote: try to be excellent, please. -sv Be excellent would be that guy to drop me a mail stating my package is being updated to a new version. This is respect ! Similarly my package perl-perlilog is now part of RHEL-6, I haven't got any email from its RH maintainer whether he cares to co-maintain it with me on fedora as well. Where is that sense of friendship Fedora once had ? This is disgusting ! I FULLY support Ralf Corsepius's comments. Chitlesh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:26 +0200, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:21 PM, seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote: try to be excellent, please. -sv Be excellent would be that guy to drop me a mail stating my package is being updated to a new version. This is respect ! Similarly my package perl-perlilog is now part of RHEL-6, I haven't got any email from its RH maintainer whether he cares to co-maintain it with me on fedora as well. Where is that sense of friendship Fedora once had ? This is disgusting ! It's not a one way street. But if you follow the rest of the discussion you'll see it wasn't a malicious action either. I think you need to calm down. I FULLY support Ralf Corsepius's comments. Then you SERIOUSLY need to take a step back from things. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 18:18 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: What would do if John Doe would apply for proven packager and write access to 1500 packages? Seriously, you'd likely tell him he's nuts. Suggesting what you think would 'likely' happen seems a weak argument. Can you cite an *actual* case of someone not-RH having a legitimate reason to be allowed modification access to a large set of packages, applying for such access, and being denied it? If not, your allegations seem rather unfounded. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 21:09 +0200, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: I would appreciate if someone else who is NEITHER a co-maintainer NOR FESCo member don't version bump my packages, without notifying me. Petr Pisar seems to mess with my packages. It's simply disgusting !! You haven't provided enough information. What's _wrong_ with helping out by packaging the latest version (I assume that's what he did?) Did he do it only for rawhide, or also with updates for F-13 etc.? Was there a good reason to upgrade? Are there open bugs which are fixed by the old version? Was there a good reason _not_ to upgrade? I see no fundamental reason why a Fedora packager shouldn't update a Fedora package; without any further information my first inclination is to think that you're being far too precious. -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
2010/7/1, Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh.goo...@gmail.com: Hello there, I would appreciate if someone else who is NEITHER a co-maintainer NOR FESCo member don't version bump my packages, without notifying me. Petr Pisar seems to mess with my packages. It's simply disgusting !! Chitlesh ! It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. imho that you have to ask him now why he did this is an unbounded cheek. he has to ask or informyou BEFORE he twiddled with your package. This is a minimum of respect he should give to you as maintainer of this package! -- Josephine Fine Tannhäuser -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almost all packages. The one exception being Mozilla. There is nothing Red Hat specific about it. imho that you have to ask him now why he did this is an unbounded cheek. he has to ask or informyou BEFORE he twiddled with your package. This is a minimum of respect he should give to you as maintainer of this package! Respect is mutual. IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone with commit access updating packages in Rawhide and if there are mistakes in the process which will happen from time to time, deal with it politely offlist. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 09:37 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almost all packages. The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers. They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. I am not sure what I should think of this from a general perspective. Fact is, except of committing a couple of beginner mistakes, at least Petr Pisar so far has been doing an excellent job. Respect is mutual. Yes. Please understand that Fedora is a community project. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
2010/7/2 Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh.goo...@gmail.com: Hello there, I would appreciate if someone else who is NEITHER a co-maintainer NOR FESCo member don't version bump my packages, without notifying me. It looks like Petr Pisar just fixed some FTBTS bugs in rawhide after mass-rebuiding of all perl-related packages. If he done anything wrong to violate fedora packaging guideline, you can point them out, otherwise I don't think it's a serious problem for fixing FTBTS bugs before notifying particular maintainers. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/perl5.12 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 01:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers. They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. I am not aware of the specifics here. Fedora's sponsorship model allows any sponsor to approve a new person to become a package maintainer . If there is a process violation, file it with FESCo but as the ongoing other thread related to this topic, less rigid idea of ownership is the right mind set. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 10:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/02/2010 01:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers. They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. I am not aware of the specifics here. I am mostly familiar with it. Fedora's sponsorship model allows any sponsor to approve a new person to become a package maintainer . If there is a process violation, There was: These people are apparent new-comers and have been granted access to several 100s (in the order of 1000) packages. file it with FESCo but as the ongoing other thread related to this topic, less rigid idea of ownership is the right mind set. The problem is not ownership the problem is qualification and double standards. That said, I can't avoid having to agree to Josephine. The Petr's hardly would have been granted this amount of CVS access if they had not been @RH. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote, at 07/02/2010 04:09 AM +9:00: Hello there, I would appreciate if someone else who is NEITHER a co-maintainer NOR FESCo member don't version bump my packages, without notifying me. Petr Pisar seems to mess with my packages. It's simply disgusting !! Chitlesh ! Apart from politeness, I want to clarify what actually occurred here: Perhaps Chitlesh complained about this change: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2010-May/433306.html http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/perl-SystemPerl/devel/?pathrev=perl-SystemPerl-1_334-1_fc14 However, looking carefully: --- Author: mmaslano Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-SystemPerl/devel In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv26946 Modified Files: .cvsignore perl-SystemPerl.spec sources Log Message: * Thu May 13 2010 Petr Pisar ppisar at redhat.com - 1.334-1 - Version bump - Disable parallel make (https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=57469) --- So the actually committer is not ppisar but mmaslano. Actually as far as I checked the pkgdb / FAS, ppisar does not have any acls for perl-SystemPerl. Regards, Mamoru -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 11:35 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: Chitlesh GOORAH wrote, at 07/02/2010 04:09 AM +9:00: Hello there, I would appreciate if someone else who is NEITHER a co-maintainer NOR FESCo member don't version bump my packages, without notifying me. Petr Pisar seems to mess with my packages. It's simply disgusting !! Chitlesh ! Apart from politeness, I want to clarify what actually occurred here: Perhaps Chitlesh complained about this change: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2010-May/433306.html http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/perl-SystemPerl/devel/?pathrev=perl-SystemPerl-1_334-1_fc14 Lets see if I got this right: 2009-09-15 chitlesh updates to 1.331, build fails 2009-12-07 kasal does mass perl 5.10.1 rebuild, build fails 2010-05-12 mmaslano does mass perl 5.10.2 rebuild, build fails 2010-05-14 mmaslano checks in ppisar's change which fixes the build 2010-07-01 chitlesh sends this mail So, the build was broken for 8 months, then mmaslano (a provenpackager) checked in a fix. After another 7 weeks, Chitlesh finally notices someone has fixed the package and says its disgusting. -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
Kalev Lember wrote, at 07/02/2010 05:51 PM +9:00: On 07/02/2010 11:35 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: Chitlesh GOORAH wrote, at 07/02/2010 04:09 AM +9:00: Hello there, I would appreciate if someone else who is NEITHER a co-maintainer NOR FESCo member don't version bump my packages, without notifying me. Petr Pisar seems to mess with my packages. It's simply disgusting !! Chitlesh ! Apart from politeness, I want to clarify what actually occurred here: Perhaps Chitlesh complained about this change: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2010-May/433306.html http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/perl-SystemPerl/devel/?pathrev=perl-SystemPerl-1_334-1_fc14 Lets see if I got this right: 2009-09-15 chitlesh updates to 1.331, build fails 2009-12-07 kasal does mass perl 5.10.1 rebuild, build fails 2010-05-12 mmaslano does mass perl 5.10.2 rebuild, build fails 2010-05-14 mmaslano checks in ppisar's change which fixes the build 2010-07-01 chitlesh sends this mail It seems so. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8618 So, the build was broken for 8 months, then mmaslano (a provenpackager) checked in a fix. After another 7 weeks, Chitlesh finally notices someone has fixed the package and says its disgusting. Mamoru -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 01:56 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: That said, I can't avoid having to agree to Josephine. The Petr's hardly would have been granted this amount of CVS access if they had not been @RH. It seems Chitlesh was wrong and the person doing the commit was different. You seem to be complaining about a different issue altogether. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
Dne 2.7.2010 09:37, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a): On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almost all packages. The one exception being Mozilla. There is nothing Red Hat specific about it. a) even more strongly, being a Red Hat employee doesn't give you anything ... you have to go through the Fedora provenpackager process b) if you don't like provenpackagers to mess with your packages, go and make a switch in pkgdb. Matěj -- We can tell our level of faith in what God wants to do for us by our level of enthusiasm for what we want God to do for other. -- Dave Schmelzer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
Matěj Cepl wrote: b) if you don't like provenpackagers to mess with your packages, go and make a switch in pkgdb. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy To exclude a package from provenpackagers access, you have to open a ticket at FESCo issue tracker and explain why provenpackagers should not have access to it. FESCo will discuss and vote on one of its weekly meetings about your request. ProvenPackagers are there precisely to do what it looks like happened with : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8618 Mark -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote: IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone with commit access updating packages in Rawhide Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! Btw, there is: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages and if there are mistakes in the process which will happen from time to time, deal with it politely offlist. Agreed. And the initial message that started this thread is lacking details. Still it's reason to be concerned. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
David Woodhouse píše v Pá 02. 07. 2010 v 07:08 +0100: On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 21:09 +0200, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: I would appreciate if someone else who is NEITHER a co-maintainer NOR FESCo member don't version bump my packages, without notifying me. Petr Pisar seems to mess with my packages. It's simply disgusting !! You haven't provided enough information. What's _wrong_ with helping out by packaging the latest version (I assume that's what he did?) Did he do it only for rawhide, or also with updates for F-13 etc.? Was there a good reason to upgrade? Are there open bugs which are fixed by the old version? Was there a good reason _not_ to upgrade? I see no fundamental reason why a Fedora packager shouldn't update a Fedora package; without any further information my first inclination is to think that you're being far too precious. (Completely abstracting from the specifics of this package, about which I don't know anything.) Fedora expects a package maintainer to be the main go to person, to handle bug reports, update the package for RPM changes, compiler changes, packaging standards and so forth - even if all the maintainer really cares about is that the package works in their particular environment with their particular Fedora version. Many package maintainers don't get anything in return except for the minimal reward of being known as the maintainer of the package. Because the maintainer will be expected to deal with the resulting bug reports, it seems quite reasonable to me that the maintainer should at least be consulted about non-trivial changes to the package. Also, changing a package contrary to the wishes of primary maintainer removes their authority and discretion over the tasks they are expected to do, which is understood to decrease intrinsic motivation. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:33:52 +0100, Mark wrote: ProvenPackagers are there precisely to do what it looks like happened with : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8618 Wait a minute, it's not that easy. Provenpackagers are not supposed to jump in every N months, apply a fix, but leave a package unmaintained for the rest of the time. Such a package should become an orphan and be assigned to a new maintainer. What's currently referred to as package owner(s) is the primary maintainer(s) who ought to keep the packages and builds in a good state and who also ought to take care of bugzilla tickets. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:40:11 +0200, Matěj wrote: Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a): Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about owning a package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in my thinking. The provenpackager, who has had 8 month to notice such a problem, has had 8 months to start the non-responsive maintainer procedure. What will happen the next time the package is affected by a bad problem? Does the same provenpackager now keep an eye on the package and will be available to fix it much sooner? Or will it takes 8 months again, because that is possible in the Fedora package collection? Matěj /thread Feel free to consider it closed and don't reply anymore. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
Excerpts from Michael Schwendt's message of Fri Jul 02 11:34:38 +0200 2010: On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote: IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone with commit access updating packages in Rawhide Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! Btw, there is: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages There was email sent out to perl mailing list about this AFAIK. And NOT one person sent an email to complain (I believe there was a few day window between mail sent to perl mailing list and mass change of packagers) -- Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 71A1677C Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:40:11AM +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote: Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a): Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about owning a package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in my thinking. I think that this is very wrong. I don't know the specifics of this package either, but I remember that for one of my packages, I had to hold of correcting a FTBS because it meant upgrading, and I coudn't do that because of some incompatibilities. Bottom line is -- unless it changed -- in the spirit of provenpackager policies for non urgent things like FTBS, provenpackagers should do as little as possible, contact packagers before doing anything, do change in cvs but let time for the packager to build or revert. -- Pat -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:33:52 +0100, Mark wrote: ProvenPackagers are there precisely to do what it looks like happened with : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8618 Wait a minute, it's not that easy. Provenpackagers are not supposed to jump in every N months, apply a fix, but leave a package unmaintained for the rest of the time. Such a package should become an orphan and be assigned to a new maintainer. Yes, but they are supposed to fix significant issue like Perl packages which FTBFS after a PERL version update if the maintainer doesn't. Or long standing bugs with NO comments from the developers. Should they also then kick off the orphaning process would be a question for FESCo Mark -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
Patrice Dumas wrote: I think that this is very wrong. I don't know the specifics of this package either, but I remember that for one of my packages, I had to hold of correcting a FTBS because it meant upgrading, and I coudn't do that because of some incompatibilities. So at least comment on the Bugzilla ticket, at which point the PP would know what was going on and leave well alone. Mark -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
I get the feeling that no one on this thread has looked into https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/403 So this has already been handled by FESCo, mistakes have been made and most likely will be avoided in the future. Felix -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:42:10 +0100, Mark wrote: ProvenPackagers are there precisely to do what it looks like happened with : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8618 Wait a minute, it's not that easy. Provenpackagers are not supposed to jump in every N months, apply a fix, but leave a package unmaintained for the rest of the time. Such a package should become an orphan and be assigned to a new maintainer. Yes, but they are supposed to fix significant issue like Perl packages which FTBFS after a PERL version update They _may_ fix those packages (it's described in the Wiki *when* a fix may be considered important), but what kind of fix they apply may be subject to prior discussion. Some types of packages may be trivial to fix with/without a version upgrade. For other packages a version upgrade could result in further significant issues. Something a dedicated maintainer would need to take care of and not just an arbitrary provenpackager, who happens to notice issues after N weeks/months. if the maintainer doesn't. The important thing to find out would be why the maintainer doesn't fix issues, which are considered significant. Or long standing bugs with NO comments from the developers. Which *could* imply that the package is unmaintained. Not always, because tickets could be useless, but somebody to look into it would be good. Currently, at dist end-of-life, valid bug reports are killed by scripts without anyone fixing the bugs. Should they also then kick off the orphaning process would be a question for FESCo It depends and is beyond the scope of this thread (because of a poorly chosen Subject line). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 11:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote: IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone with commit access updating packages in Rawhide Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! I think you are spot-on with this comment. There probably wouldn't be such a discussion if the (proven)packager simply stated his intentions to the package maintainer. Léon -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 13:55 +0200, Léon Keijser wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 11:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote: IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone with commit access updating packages in Rawhide Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! I think you are spot-on with this comment. There probably wouldn't be such a discussion if the (proven)packager simply stated his intentions to the package maintainer. That doesn't really scale, on a single package basis yeah maybe, if I have to bump 10 or 15 packages after a mass rebuild it get ugly quick. You get mails from CVS, its all in version control, if you disagree with what they did, back it out, state in the spec what they did wrong. Dave. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:03:34PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:40:11 +0200, Matěj wrote: Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a): Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about owning a package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in my thinking. The provenpackager, who has had 8 month to notice such a problem, has had 8 months to start the non-responsive maintainer procedure. What will happen the next time the package is affected by a bad problem? Does the same provenpackager now keep an eye on the package and will be available to fix it much sooner? Or will it takes 8 months again, because that is possible in the Fedora package collection? Afaik there is no good procedure available for these kind of issues. The worst case is that the package is not fixed, the best case is that there is one dedicated maintainer that starts to care about the package and the described actions are in-between. But it seems not to worry anyone enough to do something about it, e.g. like implementing a package monkey group that maintains together a lot of packages none of the members would like to maintain alone without all the bureaucracy of acking changes to the package by the bad-responsive package maintainer or a package watch list might be another idea to watch these kind of packages. Regards Till pgpJvaUR1J8hT.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:55:21PM +0200, Léon Keijser wrote: I think you are spot-on with this comment. There probably wouldn't be such a discussion if the (proven)packager simply stated his intentions to the package maintainer. Just to step into this for a moment, but this wouldn't work (in this case) since it took the package maintainer nearly 2 months to realize that his package had been updated by the provenpackager. -- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ pgpt26nUcGYA2.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 01:55 PM, Léon Keijser wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 11:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote: IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone with commit access updating packages in Rawhide Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! I think you are spot-on with this comment. There probably wouldn't be such a discussion if the (proven)packager simply stated his intentions to the package maintainer. Léon I wrote to perl-sig that we are working on perl5.12 update, which means rebuild of all packages. Also I sent list of failed packages. Some of them were fixed by maintainers, some of them were fixed by me or other people from perl-sig. I suppose every perl maintainer read perl-sig mailing list or see changelog, which explained the change. Marcela -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 01:58 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 13:55 +0200, Léon Keijser wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 11:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote: IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone with commit access updating packages in Rawhide Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! I think you are spot-on with this comment. There probably wouldn't be such a discussion if the (proven)packager simply stated his intentions to the package maintainer. That doesn't really scale, on a single package basis yeah maybe, Exactly. The perl-5.12.x rebuild involved ca. 1500 packages ;) You get mails from CVS, its all in version control, if you disagree with what they did, back it out, state in the spec what they did wrong. Exactly. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:58:10 +1000, Dave wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 13:55 +0200, Léon Keijser wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 11:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote: IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone with commit access updating packages in Rawhide Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons for not upgrading the package. Just ask! I think you are spot-on with this comment. There probably wouldn't be such a discussion if the (proven)packager simply stated his intentions to the package maintainer. That doesn't really scale, on a single package basis yeah maybe, if I have to bump 10 or 15 packages after a mass rebuild it get ugly quick. Could be that devel list is doomed. Normal mass-rebuilds most of the time are not a problem at all. If, however, with bump 10 or 15 packages you include a version-upgrade of 10 or 15 packages, then we're not talking about the same thing. You get mails from CVS, its all in version control, if you disagree with what they did, back it out, state in the spec what they did wrong. Would only work if nothing got built already. Else an Epoch bump would be needed for version upgrades the maintainer doesn't agree with. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:33:05PM +0200, Till Maas wrote: I do not want to be asked for trivial changes to my packages that fix bugs I neglected or rebuild it because of an update of a dependency. I am happy for every work I do not have to do and sending extra mails for such changes reduces the offload significantly, e.g. bumping the SPEC and starting a rebuild takes about the same time to read and write a mail. bumping and doing a rebuild may be always considered harmless. But anything else is not. It could fall in the provenpackager policy, in case provenpackagers should follow it. Otherwise there is no policy and packagers should ok changes to their packages. -- Pat -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:53:00AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/02/2010 09:37 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almost all packages. The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers. They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. Ralf, you need to stop repeating this particular line when I have repeatedly told you that working for Red Hat is not the rationale. The rationale is that a Fedora packager made a request that the packages which the perl-sig was on allow two other packagers to commit to them. Under the mistaken impression that there was a perl-sig that could decide that sort of issue, I had the ticket CC'd to the perl-sig's mailing list for objections. The ticket received one okay and zero don't do it's so after a week I went ahead and made the change. If the person being added had been you in the request, I would have done so as well. Now that I know that there really isn't an actual perl-sig that is capable of yaying or naying this sort of change I wouldn't do it again. Since the last FESCo meeting we also have criteria for judging who needs to approve a mass acl change that's quite simple: Owners and approveacls holders do this. If the owner/approveacl holder does not (through lack of response, largeness of the update, etc) then the decision to authorize goes to FESCo. -Toshio pgpik8AGRMron.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 2 July 2010 17:00, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. Ralf, you need to stop repeating this particular line when I have repeatedly told you that working for Red Hat is not the rationale. I had to apply and justify the reasons why I wanted to be a provenpackager. I work at Red Hat on lots of upstream GNOME packages, and felt I went through exactly the same process and was judged in the same way as a non-Red Hat person. I really don't think there is any kind on conspiracy doing on, honestly. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:26:32AM +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote: Dne 2.7.2010 09:37, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a): On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almost all packages. The one exception being Mozilla. There is nothing Red Hat specific about it. a) even more strongly, being a Red Hat employee doesn't give you anything ... you have to go through the Fedora provenpackager process One thing that being a RH employee does give you is access to people who are willing to sponsor you into the packager group more quickly than has traditionally been the case in Fedora. However, that's changing as *Fedora* has tried to move to a model of sponsorship into the packager group that is quicker. My clarification doesn't impact provenpackager at all. b) if you don't like provenpackagers to mess with your packages, go and make a switch in pkgdb. Actually, when FESCo was deciding whether to open all packages to provenpackager, they also decided to disable the ability to change whether provenpackager could be turned on and off. I believe the idea was that provenpackager should have access to almost everything. The firefox and thunderbird packages (because of trademark) were the one exception. Membership in provenpackager is the means for deciding whether someone is responsible enough to wield that power. -Toshio pgp9zcb0WIqua.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 06:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:53:00AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/02/2010 09:37 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almost all packages. The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers. They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. Ralf, you need to stop repeating this particular line when I have repeatedly told you that working for Red Hat is not the rationale. Toshio, I am tired of you (==Toshio) not wanting recognize what you (== RH) are did: Granting widest privileges to people who, never, repeat never would have been granted these privileges if they were not @RH. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 06:07 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 2 July 2010 17:00, Toshio Kuratomia.bad...@gmail.com wrote: They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. Ralf, you need to stop repeating this particular line when I have repeatedly told you that working for Red Hat is not the rationale. I had to apply and justify the reasons why I wanted to be a provenpackager. I know you did, but the Petr's did not. Their presumable supervisor @RH (Marcella) rushed them through the process and they had been granted access to several 100 package. I really don't think there is any kind on conspiracy doing on, honestly. I am not talking about conspiracy, I am talking about double standards. What would do if John Doe would apply for proven packager and write access to 1500 packages? Seriously, you'd likely tell him he's nuts. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 06:15:44PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/02/2010 06:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:53:00AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers. They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. Ralf, you need to stop repeating this particular line when I have repeatedly told you that working for Red Hat is not the rationale. Toshio, I am tired of you (==Toshio) not wanting recognize what you (== RH) are did: Granting widest privileges to people who, never, repeat never would have been granted these privileges if they were not @RH. Hah! What I do is worse. I'm willing to grant them privileges without requiring that they have any standing in the community or backing from a Red Hat manager. All it takes with me is the word of a measley package owner and a week without complaints on a mailing list! -Toshio pgpydEsYkUQ9j.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/2/10 9:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I had to apply and justify the reasons why I wanted to be a provenpackager. I know you did, but the Petr's did not. Their presumable supervisor @RH (Marcella) rushed them through the process and they had been granted access to several 100 package. The Petrs were not applying for provenpackager. They had what was assumed to be a sig's blessing to be granted write access to a set of packages. Not the entire world. We at that point had no policy that would stop this, regardless of who requested and who was the people being added. Being @RH had absolutely no play in this. I really don't think there is any kind on conspiracy doing on, honestly. I am not talking about conspiracy, I am talking about double standards. What would do if John Doe would apply for proven packager and write access to 1500 packages? Seriously, you'd likely tell him he's nuts. Bad analogy. There was no provenpackager access granted. Toshio didn't blindly accept the request, he called out to what he thought was the correct governing body over those packages and did not receive any negative feedback, after a week. - -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwuFzkACgkQ4v2HLvE71NV9twCgxmDU7xDtsjDfUxCWuvPJ51Rd q3UAnjPrmeyTbHpNxxP51u6bbUAyzT7U =edXM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/02/2010 06:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:53:00AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/02/2010 09:37 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almost all packages. The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers. They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. Ralf, you need to stop repeating this particular line when I have repeatedly told you that working for Red Hat is not the rationale. Toshio, I am tired of you (==Toshio) not wanting recognize what you (== RH) are did: Granting widest privileges to people who, never, repeat never would have been granted these privileges if they were not @RH. In infrastructure when people have mass requests to put in we try to complete them if they seem reasonable and if they come from people who have the authority to grant it. He did the work because he was asked to, as would I have. The infrastructure team is a service oriented team. It wasn't Toshio's job to decide who had access to what and AFAIK, he didn't make those decisions he just did the work. You're shooting the messenger not that you care. -Mike-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On 07/02/2010 06:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/2/10 9:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I had to apply and justify the reasons why I wanted to be a provenpackager. I know you did, but the Petr's did not. Their presumable supervisor @RH (Marcella) rushed them through the process and they had been granted access to several 100 package. The Petrs were not applying for provenpackager. True. They actually wanted perl-sig access, which current is technically impossible, because the Fedora's packager infrastructure doesn't support groups. Instead they had applied for full access to all perl-related packages and had been granted it. Being @RH had absolutely no play in this. As I already said, my view differs. I really don't think there is any kind on conspiracy doing on, honestly. I am not talking about conspiracy, I am talking about double standards. What would do if John Doe would apply for proven packager and write access to 1500 packages? Seriously, you'd likely tell him he's nuts. Bad analogy. Correct, I was incorrect in using the provenpackager, here. Scratch it, the rest of the anology still applies. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
Hello there, I would appreciate if someone else who is NEITHER a co-maintainer NOR FESCo member don't version bump my packages, without notifying me. Petr Pisar seems to mess with my packages. It's simply disgusting !! Chitlesh ! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 21:09 +0200, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: Hello there, I would appreciate if someone else who is NEITHER a co-maintainer NOR FESCo member don't version bump my packages, without notifying me. Petr Pisar seems to mess with my packages. It's simply disgusting !! 1. 'disgusting' seems a bit strong - you sure that word is what you wanted to choose? 2. maybe instead of calling it out on the list in public you could email him and ask? try to be excellent, please. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
