Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
Peter Robinson wrote: > We already have a process for that. They reach out to the maintainer > to be a co-maintainer at which point they can request the branches and > do the builds. The process we already have is actually: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL#The_procedure_for_getting_a_package_in_EPEL which does not require bothering the maintainer who is explicitly not interested in EPEL with this bureaucracy. I do not want to have to care about EPEL branches for my packages and I will not approve any comaintainership requests for that sole purpose. I do not see why I should have to. Whoever wants the package for EPEL should just be allowed to request and own the branch without wasting my time. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 2:04 PM Mat Booth wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 12:56, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> 3 months ago, Miro opened releng ticket[0] raising question whether >> non-maintainers (of some specific packages) being able to request >> branches. >> >> However, it never went anywhere outside of that ticket. >> >> I'd like to ask people on this mailing list a few questions. Let's say >> we have some theoretical package and it has only one maintainer in >> src.fp.o. >> >> * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to request >> new branches on that repo? > > > Is there a problem with adding such other packagers as comaintainers if they > want to maintain such a branch? > > For example: I am not at all interested in EPEL branches, but if someone > wants to maintain an EPEL branch of my package, I have absolutely no problem > with adding them as a co-maintainer. We already have a process for that. They reach out to the maintainer to be a co-maintainer at which point they can request the branches and do the builds. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:27:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 10:42 Pierre-Yves Chibon <[1]pin...@pingoured.fr> >wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:25:13PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:44 Kevin Kofler > <[1][2]kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote: > > > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to > request > > > new branches on that repo? > > > * Should provenpackager be able to do the same request? > > > > Since I do not give a darn about what happens to my packages on > EPEL, I > > am > > fine with anybody requesting EPEL branches for them as long as > they do > > the > > work and don't expect me to do anything to those branches (which > is not > > going to happen). > > > > I think this might be a good time point out that it's actually > possible to > > override the default assignee for a component for EPEL bugs (also > for > > fedora) in bugzilla by adding this override in the > > releng/fedora-scm-requests repo for the respective package, like > here: > > > > [2][3]https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/blob/master/f/rpms/jackson-databind > > (Note that lef was actually deemed non-responsive some months back, > so > > this is probably not a good example of a package where this split > > responsibility "worked".) > > Just a note on that subject, we're actively working on getting ride of > this git > repo and move this back to dist-git as well :) > >Hi Pierre, >That's good to hear, the current workflow is a bit involved. >Do you plan to store this data in a file in each dist-git branch, or in a >file containing the whole information on a separate, non-buildable orphan >(semantic overload here ...) git branch? I think the latter would have the >benefit of not interfering with dist-git contents at all, while still >being stored in the same repo. The idea is to store this in the database on pagure, no git repo involved. Pierre ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 10:42 Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:25:13PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:44 Kevin Kofler <[1]kevin.kof...@chello.at> > wrote: > > > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to > request > > > new branches on that repo? > > > * Should provenpackager be able to do the same request? > > > > Since I do not give a darn about what happens to my packages on > EPEL, I > > am > > fine with anybody requesting EPEL branches for them as long as they > do > > the > > work and don't expect me to do anything to those branches (which is > not > > going to happen). > > > >I think this might be a good time point out that it's actually > possible to > >override the default assignee for a component for EPEL bugs (also for > >fedora) in bugzilla by adding this override in the > >releng/fedora-scm-requests repo for the respective package, like here: > >[2] > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/blob/master/f/rpms/jackson-databind > >(Note that lef was actually deemed non-responsive some months back, so > >this is probably not a good example of a package where this split > >responsibility "worked".) > > Just a note on that subject, we're actively working on getting ride of > this git > repo and move this back to dist-git as well :) > Hi Pierre, That's good to hear, the current workflow is a bit involved. Do you plan to store this data in a file in each dist-git branch, or in a file containing the whole information on a separate, non-buildable orphan (semantic overload here ...) git branch? I think the latter would have the benefit of not interfering with dist-git contents at all, while still being stored in the same repo. Fabio > As for the issue discussed in this thread, this sounds like a fairly easy > change > to add to: https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/. > Could someone open a ticket there? (Do not allow non-maintainer to request > a > branch on a package) > The workflow becoming: if you want an epel branch created, talk to the > current > maintainer, get them to give you commit on the package and then request the > branch via fedpkg. > > > Thanks, > Pierre > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On 03. 12. 19 10:41, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: As for the issue discussed in this thread, this sounds like a fairly easy change to add to: https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/. Could someone open a ticket there? (Do not allow non-maintainer to request a branch on a package) https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8844 is open and links to a fedscm-admin PR. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:25:13PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:44 Kevin Kofler <[1]kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote: > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to request > > new branches on that repo? > > * Should provenpackager be able to do the same request? > > Since I do not give a darn about what happens to my packages on EPEL, I > am > fine with anybody requesting EPEL branches for them as long as they do > the > work and don't expect me to do anything to those branches (which is not > going to happen). > >I think this might be a good time point out that it's actually possible to >override the default assignee for a component for EPEL bugs (also for >fedora) in bugzilla by adding this override in the >releng/fedora-scm-requests repo for the respective package, like here: > > [2]https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/blob/master/f/rpms/jackson-databind >(Note that lef was actually deemed non-responsive some months back, so >this is probably not a good example of a package where this split >responsibility "worked".) Just a note on that subject, we're actively working on getting ride of this git repo and move this back to dist-git as well :) As for the issue discussed in this thread, this sounds like a fairly easy change to add to: https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/. Could someone open a ticket there? (Do not allow non-maintainer to request a branch on a package) The workflow becoming: if you want an epel branch created, talk to the current maintainer, get them to give you commit on the package and then request the branch via fedpkg. Thanks, Pierre ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:44 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to request > > new branches on that repo? > > * Should provenpackager be able to do the same request? > > Since I do not give a darn about what happens to my packages on EPEL, I am > fine with anybody requesting EPEL branches for them as long as they do the > work and don't expect me to do anything to those branches (which is not > going to happen). > I think this might be a good time point out that it's actually possible to override the default assignee for a component for EPEL bugs (also for fedora) in bugzilla by adding this override in the releng/fedora-scm-requests repo for the respective package, like here: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/blob/master/f/rpms/jackson-databind (Note that lef was actually deemed non-responsive some months back, so this is probably not a good example of a package where this split responsibility "worked".) Fabio > Kevin Kofler > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
Igor Gnatenko wrote: > * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to request > new branches on that repo? > * Should provenpackager be able to do the same request? Since I do not give a darn about what happens to my packages on EPEL, I am fine with anybody requesting EPEL branches for them as long as they do the work and don't expect me to do anything to those branches (which is not going to happen). Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On 02/12/2019 14:37, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > IIUC, effectively "new branches" means "EPEL branches" since normal > Fedora branches are all created automatically. > > So to rephrase this > > * Should someone who is not the maintainer be able to declare > that the maintainer must accept EPEL branches & the extra > work that involves thereafter. > > AFAIK, there's no requirement that Fedora package maintainers have > to provide EPEL branches, its upto each maintainer if they want that > work. > ... > > So if the maintainer doesn't want to maintain the EPEL branches, the > only long term viable option is to find willing co-maintainers to join, > who can then request the branch & do builds, triage bugs, etc. > > IOW, I struggle to see a reason to allow someone who is a not a > (co-)maintainer to request new branches in general. I'm not convinced > that provenpackagers should be able to do this either, unless they > want to volunteer to be the explicitly co-maintainer too, in which > case the question doesn't arise. > Yes! Several times. I've recently had this with some of "my" packages, where someone could create branches and even kicked in builds for EPEL8. Half of them are broken, and for a user, it just looks bad; users also have the expectation that I'd fix those issues. I am currently thankful for every bit I don't have to care about. I am assuming the best intent, but if there's a chance for it, I'd rather forbid branch requests from non-maintainers. Matthias ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 12:56, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Hello, > > 3 months ago, Miro opened releng ticket[0] raising question whether > non-maintainers (of some specific packages) being able to request > branches. > > However, it never went anywhere outside of that ticket. > > I'd like to ask people on this mailing list a few questions. Let's say > we have some theoretical package and it has only one maintainer in > src.fp.o. > > * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to request > new branches on that repo? > Is there a problem with adding such other packagers as comaintainers if they want to maintain such a branch? For example: I am not at all interested in EPEL branches, but if someone wants to maintain an EPEL branch of my package, I have absolutely no problem with adding them as a co-maintainer. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 01:55:55PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Hello, > > 3 months ago, Miro opened releng ticket[0] raising question whether > non-maintainers (of some specific packages) being able to request > branches. > > However, it never went anywhere outside of that ticket. > > I'd like to ask people on this mailing list a few questions. Let's say > we have some theoretical package and it has only one maintainer in > src.fp.o. > > * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to request > new branches on that repo? > * Should provenpackager be able to do the same request? IIUC, effectively "new branches" means "EPEL branches" since normal Fedora branches are all created automatically. So to rephrase this * Should someone who is not the maintainer be able to declare that the maintainer must accept EPEL branches & the extra work that involves thereafter. AFAIK, there's no requirement that Fedora package maintainers have to provide EPEL branches, its upto each maintainer if they want that work. Personally I don't wish to maintain EPEL branches for any package I'm maintaining in Fedora, since it is an additional timesink I don't need. I'm more than happy for people to volunteer as co-maintainers and then take care of EPEL branches though & thus I've added co-maintainers on many occassions for this reason. Even if the request to create the branch by a non-maintainer was honoured, it wouldn't result in any builds being done on that branch, nor any bugs being triaged thereafter. So if the maintainer doesn't want to maintain the EPEL branches, the only long term viable option is to find willing co-maintainers to join, who can then request the branch & do builds, triage bugs, etc. IOW, I struggle to see a reason to allow someone who is a not a (co-)maintainer to request new branches in general. I'm not convinced that provenpackagers should be able to do this either, unless they want to volunteer to be the explicitly co-maintainer too, in which case the question doesn't arise. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
On 02. 12. 19 13:55, Igor Gnatenko wrote: Hello, 3 months ago, Miro opened releng ticket[0] raising question whether non-maintainers (of some specific packages) being able to request branches. However, it never went anywhere outside of that ticket. I'd like to ask people on this mailing list a few questions. Let's say we have some theoretical package and it has only one maintainer in src.fp.o. * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to request new branches on that repo? IMHO Yes, but there are a few preconditions: When Anna requests an epel8 branch on "my" package: - she maintains it, not me. - I want to get notified to coordinate with her (in case I actually want to maintain it in epel8). So until we have branch ownership and proper notifications, no. > * Should provenpackager be able to do the same request? Only if they are becoming regular maintainers. Provenpackagers requesting branches of packages where they are not maintainers is the worst combination. As said relatively recently somewhere else on this mailing list, they will create it, but nobody will actually maintain it. They will not be even notified on new bugzillas until they explicitly set that up somehow. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers
Hello, 3 months ago, Miro opened releng ticket[0] raising question whether non-maintainers (of some specific packages) being able to request branches. However, it never went anywhere outside of that ticket. I'd like to ask people on this mailing list a few questions. Let's say we have some theoretical package and it has only one maintainer in src.fp.o. * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to request new branches on that repo? * Should provenpackager be able to do the same request? [0] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8844 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
