Hi Julian,
Am Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 09:21:40PM + schrieb Julian Gilbey:
> Following on from some earlier discussions, I've been thinking about
> the relationship between the DPT (presumably a group of developers who
> work together) and salsa (could there be packages in the
>
On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 06:46:52PM +0100, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Same for me. Thanks for proposal. +1
> Anton
> Am Sa., 9. März 2024 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nilesh Patra :
>
> I am late to the party but I agree with the policy change.
Following on from some earlier discussions, I've been thinking
Same for me. Thanks for proposal. +1
Anton
Am Sa., 9. März 2024 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nilesh Patra :
> I am late to the party but I agree with the policy change.
>
> Best,
> Nilesh
>
On 2024-02-27 03:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
> the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to
> DPMT[1][2]. I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages
> from the Blends teams to DPT. I
On 2024-03-03 17:32, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 3/3/24 00:37, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> For
>> example, I also often skip tests -- it's just that I do it under
>> conditions that I'm happy to defend (cause isolated, reported upstream,
>> etc.), but others may not be aware of that.
>
> There are
On March 3, 2024 6:12:09 AM UTC, Andreas Tille wrote:
>Hi Christian,
>
>Am Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 11:48:57PM +0100 schrieb Christian Kastner:
>> On 2024-03-02 23:11, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> > I'm curious why you believe I didn't care. I likely would have reverted
>> > my change if I didn't have
On 3/3/24 00:37, Christian Kastner wrote:
For
example, I also often skip tests -- it's just that I do it under
conditions that I'm happy to defend (cause isolated, reported upstream,
etc.), but others may not be aware of that.
There are many cases where skipping tests is ok. As you wrote, when
On 3/2/24 23:09, Christian Kastner wrote:
Not going to name names, but I've seen this with packages I've worked
on: I put a lot of effort into cleaning things up, making things robust,
getting docs to build, tests to pass, collaborating with upstream,
fixing reverse dependencies, and then
On 3/2/24 21:29, Andreas Tille wrote:
sphinxtesters (0.2.3-4) unstable; urgency=medium
* Revert attempt by a rogue developer to hijack this package
-- Sandro Tosi Sun, 14 Jan 2024 01:25:23 -0500
I wonder how the attribute 'rogue' is supported by the discussion above,
nor where the
+1 for this policy change too,
I went through the same hurdles & thinking progress, but it's much fresher
in py head because I m only contributing to DPT since 1/1/2024, doing
exactly what I said I would do on my membership application mail.
Before this talk happened I would not have recommended
Hi Christian,
Am Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 11:48:57PM +0100 schrieb Christian Kastner:
> On 2024-03-02 23:11, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I'm curious why you believe I didn't care. I likely would have reverted
> > my change if I didn't have more urgent matters to attend to.
> > Re-uploading a package
On 2024-03-02 23:09, Christian Kastner wrote:
> I think moving DPT to Maintainers is a good idea.
Additionally, I agree that having DPT in Uploaders is pointless, and
welcome the prposed policy change.
> I think removing Uploaders is a terrible one.
Apologies, I retract this part as it was not
Hi Stefano,
I need to retract my previous mail. Ironically, it was based on a
careless misread of the proposed policy change diff.
On 2024-03-03 00:07, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Now that we have Salsa with Merge Requests, it's hard for me to see much
> benefit from having packages in the team with
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 09:05:44AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
> the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to
> DPMT[1][2]. I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages
> from
Hi Christian (2024.03.02_22:09:29_+)
> Some packages are complex, some packages have lots of reverse
> dependencies. Where these two circles overlap, a careless "drive-by"
> maintainer can do a lot of harm.
Maybe we should look at ways we can improve this situation, without
having to have
Hi again,
On 2024-03-02 23:11, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I'm curious why you believe I didn't care. I likely would have reverted
> my change if I didn't have more urgent matters to attend to.
> Re-uploading a package just to revert the Maintainer and Uploader is
> lower on my priority list than
Hi Andreas,
On 2024-02-27 09:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for newcomers
> as well as long standing contributors I would like to suggest to drop
> this "weak statement of collaboration" option from policy. I've attached
> an according patch to
Am Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 09:11:52PM + schrieb Scott Kitterman:
>
> It's possible I am misunderstanding you here (languages are hard even when
> they are your first), but if I am not, I think you are not really seeing
> things from the correct perspective.
I'm probably biased since involved
On March 2, 2024 8:29:47 PM UTC, Andreas Tille wrote:
>Hi Jeroen,
>
>Am Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:48:33PM +0100 schrieb Jeroen Ploemen:
>> ...
>
>Julian had sensibly commented on this and had added interesting
>questions I'm keen on hearing your answers.
>
>> As for the inclusion of codes of
Hi Jeroen,
Am Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:48:33PM +0100 schrieb Jeroen Ploemen:
> ...
Julian had sensibly commented on this and had added interesting
questions I'm keen on hearing your answers.
> As for the inclusion of codes of conduct or similar wording,
> documenting common sense just feels
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 07:21:57 +
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> These are really interesting points. Under the proposed system, I
> presume that one could leave "privately maintained" packages within
> the python-team area of salsa and still benefit from these automatic
> changes without giving
Hi Jeroen,
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:48:33PM +0100, Jeroen Ploemen wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:32:54 +
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> > While I do take advantage of this for a few packages, I don't
> > personally care much either way. I suspect that packages will be
> > removed from
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:32:54 +
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> While I do take advantage of this for a few packages, I don't
> personally care much either way. I suspect that packages will be
> removed from team maintenance as a result though and I think that's
> a bad idea.
>
> I'd prefer the
On 2/28/24 12:44, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Everyone in Debian is already bound by the code of conduct already, so it seems
redundant to add it here again.
I agree.
Thomas
Hi,
* Andreas Tille [2024-02-28 11:51]:
I think it could be useful for the routine-update command to stop
when such file is hit, in order to raise the importance that the
package has quirks, and should not be casually updated without
involved scrutiny. I wonder whether this can be
Hi Scott,
Am Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 09:19:29AM -0500 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> Looking at your list, I note that it includes team members that have been
> very
> active in team wide work, not just on their own packages.
I'm fully aware of this.
> I think it would be
> contrary to the spirit
Hi Scott,
Am Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:44:07AM + schrieb Scott Kitterman:
>
> This makes more sense to me. It is completely understandable that how things
> are communicated affects how people feel about them. This is a difficult
> thing to get right. I have experienced similar
On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 3:21:12 AM EST Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Louis-Philippe (just quoting below in case you might have missed it) is
> repeating the importance that anyone who thinks my suggestion (MR[1]) is
> a bad idea make themselves heard. I'm hereby adding those maintainers
On February 28, 2024 9:54:55 AM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>On 2/28/24 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> It's self-induced. I mean if it's demotivating to have people point out
>> that you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yourself
>> by following the policy. If I
On February 28, 2024 7:08:14 AM UTC, Andreas Tille wrote:
>Hi Scott,
>
>Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:54:01PM + schrieb Scott Kitterman:
>> It's self-induced. I mean if it's demotivating to have people point out
>> that you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yourself
Hi Étienne,
Am Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 09:37:59AM +0100 schrieb Étienne Mollier:
> > > Instead of restricting collaboration, we could let policy encourage
> > > maintainers to state such constraints in debian/README.DPT and ask team
> > > members to check that file before they team-upload.
> >
> >
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 09:05:44AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [...]
+1 from me, too. I had completely forgotten this paragraph in the
Python policy and it doesn't make that much sense. I personally
generally do send an email to anyone in the "Maintainers" field or the
last uploader
On 2/28/24 09:21, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
Louis-Philippe (just quoting below in case you might have missed it) is
repeating the importance that anyone who thinks my suggestion (MR[1]) is
a bad idea make themselves heard. I'm hereby adding those maintainers
who have more than 5 packages that
On 2/28/24 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It's self-induced. I mean if it's demotivating to have people point out that
you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yourself by
following the policy. If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, all
of Debian's rules can
Hi,
2024-02-27 09:06 CET, Andreas Tille:
> I probably should have reviewed the DPT policy on Maintainership[3] more
> carefully. In other teams, it's common for the Maintainer to be set to
> the team, so I assumed it was just an oversight when I made this
> change[4] when touching the package to
Hello,
I support this change too. I am myself set to maintainer of packages
just because whatever tool we used at the time to generate debian/
directory for a package did that.
On 2024-02-28 09:21, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
Louis-Philippe (just quoting below in case you might have missed
Hi all,
Andreas Tille, on 2024-02-28:
> Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:08:51PM +0100 schrieb Timo Röhling:
> > I guess the motivation behind the weak collaboration model is that some
> > packages have hidden "gotchas", which a casual team uploader might not know.
> > For instance, pygit2 is one of
Hi,
Louis-Philippe (just quoting below in case you might have missed it) is
repeating the importance that anyone who thinks my suggestion (MR[1]) is
a bad idea make themselves heard. I'm hereby adding those maintainers
who have more than 5 packages that are affected and did not yet raised
their
Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:25:49PM + schrieb weepingclown:
> While perfectly understanding the weak collaboration model reasoning, I've
> still always found DPT as uploader and not maintainer rather absurd TBH. The
> current go to tool (as I understand it) for python packaging, py2dsp, also
Hi Timo,
Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:08:51PM +0100 schrieb Timo Röhling:
> I guess the motivation behind the weak collaboration model is that some
> packages have hidden "gotchas", which a casual team uploader might not know.
> For instance, pygit2 is one of multiple libgit2 language bindings
Hi Scott,
Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:54:01PM + schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> It's self-induced. I mean if it's demotivating to have people point out that
> you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yourself by
> following the policy. If I take your argument to its logical
Hi Andreas (2024.02.27_08:05:44_+)
> I did what I usually do in those teams: I dedicated quite some time in
> team wide bug hunting. That way I squashed about 50 bugs on packages
> where I was not in Uploaders.
Thank you for doing this work. I've come across a number of DPT bugs
where
On February 27, 2024 11:42:33 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>On 2/27/24 19:32, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I suspect that packages will be removed from team maintenance as a result
>> though and I think that's a bad idea.
>
>If a package isn't in the team, any DD can ask for permission from the
On 2/27/24 19:32, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I suspect that packages will be removed from team maintenance as a result
though and I think that's a bad idea.
If a package isn't in the team, any DD can ask for permission from the
maintainer before an upload. So, what's the difference, with a
On 2024-02-27 03:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to
DPMT[1][2]. I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages
from the Blends teams to DPT. I was
Andreas Tille writes:
> Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for newcomers
> as well as long standing contributors I would like to suggest to drop
> this "weak statement of collaboration" option from policy. I've attached
> an according patch to the team policy[5]. I'm fine
On February 27, 2024 2:27:35 PM UTC, Scott Talbert wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> On 2/27/24 09:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
>>> the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science
While perfectly understanding the weak collaboration model reasoning, I've
still always found DPT as uploader and not maintainer rather absurd TBH. The
current go to tool (as I understand it) for python packaging, py2dsp, also
creates an initial packaging with team in uploaders section and the
On 2024-02-27 15:15, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Though indeed, I don't
> think it's reasonable to have a package in the team, but with strong
> ownership. I believe that we should either have a package in the team,
> or not. Period.
I'm in favour of that change, too, but I can live with the current
Hi,
* Andreas Tille [2024-02-27 09:05]:
Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for
newcomers as well as long standing contributors I would like to
suggest to drop this "weak statement of collaboration" option from
policy.
+1 from me.
I guess the motivation behind the weak
* Thomas Goirand [2024-02-27 15:15]:
So I'm 100% with you for the removal of this policy.
+1 to everything.
Cheers Jochen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 2/27/24 09:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to
DPMT[1][2]. I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30
On 2/27/24 09:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to
DPMT[1][2]. I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages
from the Blends teams to DPT. I was
Hi,
I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to
DPMT[1][2]. I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages
from the Blends teams to DPT. I was happy with this move since it makes
sense.
54 matches
Mail list logo
