Re: [foreman-dev] Taking over plugins - do we need a policy?
On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 08:20 +0200, Marek Hulán wrote: > curl https://rubygems.org/api/v1/gems/foreman_chef/owners.json > > see http://guides.rubygems.org/rubygems-org-api/#owner-methods for > more details. Ah, perfect, thanks. I'll get a policy drafted up and then I can script this an mail all plugins that only have a single owner to ask them to add another. Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foreman-dev] Taking over plugins - do we need a policy?
On pondělí 14. srpna 2017 17:31:00 CEST Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > Hi all, > > This went fairly quiet, but we all seem largely in agreement. I'll > draft something up for the website and send a PR tomorrow. I had a few > side questions though: > > On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 10:13 +0200, Marek Hulán wrote: > > In general +1. I'm not sure if official policy changes anything, > > probably does not do any harm either > > Indeed, and helps us to remember to add maintainers when bringing a > plugin into the GitHub org. > > > It would be great if someone went over all plugins under theforeman > > org on github, found projects with single owner and ask the owner to > > extend the list. Or someone scritped a simple check so we would > > avoid this situation in future. I think what Dmitri described > > is fair and should become a common practice for new repos/gems in our > > org. > > Is there a way to view that info on Rubygems? I can't see it on the gem > pages themselves, is there an API I've missed? I can see it on gem page, e.g. at https://rubygems.org/gems/foreman_chef search for OWNERS. There's just me. This is how to get this info through curl curl https://rubygems.org/api/v1/gems/foreman_chef/owners.json see http://guides.rubygems.org/rubygems-org-api/#owner-methods for more details. -- Marek > > On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 16:28 +0200, Daniel Lobato Garcia wrote: > > +1 to this, I am stuck with foreman-docker where I want to give > > publish > > What's blocking you? Who owns the gem? > > Regards > Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foreman-dev] Taking over plugins - do we need a policy?
Hi all, This went fairly quiet, but we all seem largely in agreement. I'll draft something up for the website and send a PR tomorrow. I had a few side questions though: On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 10:13 +0200, Marek Hulán wrote: > In general +1. I'm not sure if official policy changes anything, > probably does not do any harm either Indeed, and helps us to remember to add maintainers when bringing a plugin into the GitHub org. > It would be great if someone went over all plugins under theforeman > org on github, found projects with single owner and ask the owner to > extend the list. Or someone scritped a simple check so we would > avoid this situation in future. I think what Dmitri described > is fair and should become a common practice for new repos/gems in our > org. Is there a way to view that info on Rubygems? I can't see it on the gem pages themselves, is there an API I've missed? On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 16:28 +0200, Daniel Lobato Garcia wrote: > +1 to this, I am stuck with foreman-docker where I want to give > publish What's blocking you? Who owns the gem? Regards Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foreman-dev] Taking over plugins - do we need a policy?
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:13:24AM +0200, Marek Hulán wrote: On úterý 18. července 2017 13:15:22 CEST Greg Sutcliffe wrote: Hi all, I've been thinking for a while about plugins, and how to continue them when original authors move on. It's only natural that developers will come and go, so we need to think about how to deal with this. We've got a few examples of this now, and have had others in the past. 1) I'm playing with Salt in my spare time at the moment, with a view to (maybe) taking on the foreman_salt plugin, since Stephen is no longer working on it. However, it's only chance that I know this fact - there's no easy way for an author to mark a plugin as "orphaned". 2) Some plugins are awaiting changes but the author hasn't responded (yet!). Foreman_bootdisk has some open PRs at the moment that fall into this category (PRs 42, 43 for example), and default_hostgroup has pen issues (oops!). Presumably we need a way to ping authors and find out if they're just AFK or have stepped away from the plugin entirely. 3) Some plugins are definitely abandoned. I recall Chris Pisano taking over the foreman_banner plugin last year and struggling to get in touch with the original author at all. For context, Fedora does have a policy for this that makes some sense: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintai ners That's quite heavy, but some of the points make sense. So, do we need to add something to our docs about this. My gut feeling is: * Yes, we do * Only applies to plugins in "theforeman" GitHub repo * We need to add extra maintainers to the Rubygems *before* the author leaves - Chris had a real issue here. This could be a requirement of getting aplugin packaged, for example. * We need to allow authors to "abandon" a plugin clearly (something like how the Arch User Repository does it maybe?) Thoughts? Greg In general +1. I'm not sure if official policy changes anything, probably does not do any harm either. It would be great if someone went over all plugins under theforeman org on github, found projects with single owner and ask the owner to extend the list. Or someone scritped a simple check so we would avoid this situation in future. I think what Dmitri described is fair and should become a common practice for new repos/gems in our org. +1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foreman-dev] Taking over plugins - do we need a policy?
On úterý 18. července 2017 13:15:22 CEST Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been thinking for a while about plugins, and how to continue them > when original authors move on. It's only natural that developers will > come and go, so we need to think about how to deal with this. We've got > a few examples of this now, and have had others in the past. > > 1) I'm playing with Salt in my spare time at the moment, with a view to > (maybe) taking on the foreman_salt plugin, since Stephen is no longer > working on it. However, it's only chance that I know this fact - > there's no easy way for an author to mark a plugin as "orphaned". > > 2) Some plugins are awaiting changes but the author hasn't responded > (yet!). Foreman_bootdisk has some open PRs at the moment that fall into > this category (PRs 42, 43 for example), and default_hostgroup has pen > issues (oops!). Presumably we need a way to ping authors and find out > if they're just AFK or have stepped away from the plugin entirely. > > 3) Some plugins are definitely abandoned. I recall Chris Pisano taking > over the foreman_banner plugin last year and struggling to get in touch > with the original author at all. > > For context, Fedora does have a policy for this that makes some sense: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintai > ners > > That's quite heavy, but some of the points make sense. So, do we need > to add something to our docs about this. My gut feeling is: > > * Yes, we do > * Only applies to plugins in "theforeman" GitHub repo > * We need to add extra maintainers to the Rubygems *before* the author > leaves - Chris had a real issue here. This could be a requirement of > getting aplugin packaged, for example. > * We need to allow authors to "abandon" a plugin clearly (something > like how the Arch User Repository does it maybe?) > > Thoughts? > Greg In general +1. I'm not sure if official policy changes anything, probably does not do any harm either. It would be great if someone went over all plugins under theforeman org on github, found projects with single owner and ask the owner to extend the list. Or someone scritped a simple check so we would avoid this situation in future. I think what Dmitri described is fair and should become a common practice for new repos/gems in our org. -- Marek -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foreman-dev] Taking over plugins - do we need a policy?
On 07/18, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been thinking for a while about plugins, and how to continue them > when original authors move on. It's only natural that developers will > come and go, so we need to think about how to deal with this. We've got > a few examples of this now, and have had others in the past. > > 1) I'm playing with Salt in my spare time at the moment, with a view to > (maybe) taking on the foreman_salt plugin, since Stephen is no longer > working on it. However, it's only chance that I know this fact - > there's no easy way for an author to mark a plugin as "orphaned". > > 2) Some plugins are awaiting changes but the author hasn't responded > (yet!). Foreman_bootdisk has some open PRs at the moment that fall into > this category (PRs 42, 43 for example), and default_hostgroup has pen > issues (oops!). Presumably we need a way to ping authors and find out > if they're just AFK or have stepped away from the plugin entirely. > > 3) Some plugins are definitely abandoned. I recall Chris Pisano taking > over the foreman_banner plugin last year and struggling to get in touch > with the original author at all. > > For context, Fedora does have a policy for this that makes some sense: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintai > ners > > That's quite heavy, but some of the points make sense. So, do we need > to add something to our docs about this. My gut feeling is: > > * Yes, we do > * Only applies to plugins in "theforeman" GitHub repo > * We need to add extra maintainers to the Rubygems *before* the author > leaves - Chris had a real issue here. This could be a requirement of > getting aplugin packaged, for example. +1 to this, I am stuck with foreman-docker where I want to give publish access to Bastilian but I can't > * We need to allow authors to "abandon" a plugin clearly (something > like how the Arch User Repository does it maybe?) I think marking this in a GitHub issue, README or somewhere like that would be enough, not sure if we need anything more formal than that (there are 1000s of packages in Fedora, only a few 10s of plugins?) > > Thoughts? > Greg > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Daniel Lobato Garcia @dLobatog blog.daniellobato.me daniellobato.me GPG: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A92D6DD38D6DE30 Keybase: https://keybase.io/elobato -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [foreman-dev] Taking over plugins - do we need a policy?
FWIW, the approach I arrived at for smart-proxy plugins: - Explain the original developer their options for hosting the plugin (i.e. within Foreman github organization, and outside of it, and what each option entails). The former implies that Foreman developers have a say over technical matters that affect maintenance (for example test coverage). - Should they choose to move their code into the Foreman organization, ask them to grant a committer access to at least one of the Foreman core developers, and rights to release gems. - Agree with them on commit and review process. Cheers, -d On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been thinking for a while about plugins, and how to continue them > when original authors move on. It's only natural that developers will > come and go, so we need to think about how to deal with this. We've got > a few examples of this now, and have had others in the past. > > 1) I'm playing with Salt in my spare time at the moment, with a view to > (maybe) taking on the foreman_salt plugin, since Stephen is no longer > working on it. However, it's only chance that I know this fact - > there's no easy way for an author to mark a plugin as "orphaned". > > 2) Some plugins are awaiting changes but the author hasn't responded > (yet!). Foreman_bootdisk has some open PRs at the moment that fall into > this category (PRs 42, 43 for example), and default_hostgroup has pen > issues (oops!). Presumably we need a way to ping authors and find out > if they're just AFK or have stepped away from the plugin entirely. > > 3) Some plugins are definitely abandoned. I recall Chris Pisano taking > over the foreman_banner plugin last year and struggling to get in touch > with the original author at all. > > For context, Fedora does have a policy for this that makes some sense: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintai > ners > > That's quite heavy, but some of the points make sense. So, do we need > to add something to our docs about this. My gut feeling is: > > * Yes, we do > * Only applies to plugins in "theforeman" GitHub repo > * We need to add extra maintainers to the Rubygems *before* the author > leaves - Chris had a real issue here. This could be a requirement of > getting aplugin packaged, for example. > * We need to allow authors to "abandon" a plugin clearly (something > like how the Arch User Repository does it maybe?) > > Thoughts? > Greg > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[foreman-dev] Taking over plugins - do we need a policy?
Hi all, I've been thinking for a while about plugins, and how to continue them when original authors move on. It's only natural that developers will come and go, so we need to think about how to deal with this. We've got a few examples of this now, and have had others in the past. 1) I'm playing with Salt in my spare time at the moment, with a view to (maybe) taking on the foreman_salt plugin, since Stephen is no longer working on it. However, it's only chance that I know this fact - there's no easy way for an author to mark a plugin as "orphaned". 2) Some plugins are awaiting changes but the author hasn't responded (yet!). Foreman_bootdisk has some open PRs at the moment that fall into this category (PRs 42, 43 for example), and default_hostgroup has pen issues (oops!). Presumably we need a way to ping authors and find out if they're just AFK or have stepped away from the plugin entirely. 3) Some plugins are definitely abandoned. I recall Chris Pisano taking over the foreman_banner plugin last year and struggling to get in touch with the original author at all. For context, Fedora does have a policy for this that makes some sense: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintai ners That's quite heavy, but some of the points make sense. So, do we need to add something to our docs about this. My gut feeling is: * Yes, we do * Only applies to plugins in "theforeman" GitHub repo * We need to add extra maintainers to the Rubygems *before* the author leaves - Chris had a real issue here. This could be a requirement of getting aplugin packaged, for example. * We need to allow authors to "abandon" a plugin clearly (something like how the Arch User Repository does it maybe?) Thoughts? Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
