On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:35:32AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
The system is fairly open with regard to just about everything except
attitude. Currently it's mostly attitude that prevents openness.
The ACL system restrict changes to other people packages to provenpackagers.
And then the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/13/10 2:43 AM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:35:32AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
The system is fairly open with regard to just about everything except
attitude. Currently it's mostly attitude that prevents openness.
The
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:30:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
This generally works out pretty well, and helps out with the problem of
having quite a small set of maintainers for an extremely large set of
packages. I was often in the situation where I happened to notice a
small issue with
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:28:31PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I thought rawhide should be more useful and less broken if i recall
the latest threads right. Anyways, exactly that's why i do *not* want
anybody can do anything with any package. That's just insane, sorry.
This is Fedora.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/6/10 2:16 AM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe Fedora should do a transition to a more open system, since the dedicated
packager is less present nowadays. But it should be done carefully, in order
not to piss off the remaining dedicated packagers,
Nils Philippsen wrote:
AIUI, a SIG are more people than those who actually work on related
packages as maintainers, or are competent and responsible enough to not
break things in the process of updating packages with which they're not
familiar (otherwise they'd be (co-)maintainers, wouldn't
Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
There _is_ a middle ground between bleeding edge and extremely stable.
A Fedora release should have a locked version of key shared packages,
such as Python, Rails, etc., should be kept at a specific version (with
upgrades only for bug fixes).
Well, I don't know how
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 03:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
We need groups, with grouped privileges/acls etc. It's essentially
what e.g. the perl-sig originally was meant to be.
Yes, group ACLs are definitely needed, but in addition to that technical
feature, we also
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 03:18 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd also
make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a problem. You see a
problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the package has an active maintainer
or not?
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 13:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
In practice, packages still have maintainers who are recognized for
practical reasons and generally you would check with the listed
maintainer of a package before making a change to it. (But, hey, if they
don't reply in a day or two,
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
You have to accept the maintainers decision to not update it yet? What
do you think will happen if everyone builds the wishes he has and
breaks a lot of stuff with it? Anarchy? We have processes
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:40:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
You have to accept the maintainers decision to not update it yet? What
do you think will happen if everyone builds the wishes he has and
breaks a lot of stuff with it? Anarchy? We have processes for that in
Fedora:
2010/7/3 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:40:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
It is part of the Fedora Objectives:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives
to be on the leading edge of free and open source technology. Given that,
it is completely unacceptable to not
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:43:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 07/02/2010 07:37 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Ok, this policy was for the other case, a case when the maintainer
does not respond. I am not saying that it happens a lot, but it
happened in the past, and the syslog-ng case
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 18:08:03 +0800, Chen wrote:
I'm fully agree with you, but there are some maintainers who don't
respond on bugzilla at all or for a very long time. They may be still
active on koji, but they don't respond even when you attach a
patch/spec to solve known issues or request for
On 07/03/2010 04:05 PM, Till Maas wrote:
Most of the packages listed here are not up to date:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?emailreporter1=1emailtype1=exactquery_format=advancedbug_status=ASSIGNEDemail1=upstream-release-monitoring%40fedoraproject.orgproduct=Fedora
Yeah but this is a
Thomas Janssen wrote:
I'm sorry, i can't agree with you here. Being more aggressive, putting
pressure on whatever just to have the latest versions of all the
software around in rawhide, sounds to me like we would go and break
rawhide a lot.
I thought rawhide should be more useful and less
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Ridiculous. :( The way you've phrased it doesn't meet the be excellent
guidelines IMO. There is nothing completely unacceptable or against
Fedora's objectives with skipping certain upstream releases. And I hope
that nobody will become more aggressive or try to force me
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:33 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Rawhide should always have the latest upstream release unless there's a
strong reason why a particular release needs to be skipped (i.e. it's
broken, it contains illegal stuff or something like that).
How would you find out whether that's the
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
I'm sorry, i can't agree with you here. Being more aggressive, putting
pressure on whatever just to have the latest versions of all the
software around in rawhide, sounds to me like we would go and
Michael Schwendt wrote:
How would you find out whether that's the case? - You would need to talk
to the package maintainer(s). Having arbitrary provenpackagers perform
random upgrades won't do it.
We need to get packagers to document the reason why they're not upgrading
some package in a
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 23:28 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
I don't think it really matters what we call it, I just think that
package maintainers are starting to get a sense of entitlement and I
feel that's counter productive to the open environment we're used to
and are trying to help continue to
Dne 2.7.2010 06:28, Adam Miller napsal(a):
I don't think it really matters what we call it, I just think that
package maintainers are starting to get a sense of entitlement and I
feel that's counter productive to the open environment we're used to
and are trying to help continue to grow.
I
2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
Dave Airlie wrote:
So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a concept
of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word from usage
about maintainership.
+1
IMHO any sponsored packager should be free
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu wrote:
2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
Dave Airlie wrote:
So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a concept
of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word from usage
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:23:43PM +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd
also
make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a problem. You see a
problem, you fix it.
2010/7/2 Patrice Dumas pertu...@free.fr:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:23:43PM +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd
also
make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a
On 07/02/2010 06:46 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
In the past we proposed a policy for that kind of issues with Rahul,
but it was never approved (nor really considered).
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenance
I had forgotten about this but since becoming
Hello,
2010-07-02 14:48 keltezéssel, Thomas Janssen írta:
+1
I'd like to get syslog-ng updated to the latest version in Rawhide (I
work part time for the upstream developer and I'm also an occasional
Fedora user). I contacted the package owner, no response. Created a
bugreport to get it
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:36:34PM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
I think escalating to FESCo is only suitable for changes which are
controversial between different people, we should have another policy
to treat those non-responsive issues, maintainers should respond on
bugzilla report in time.
I
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:15:54PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I had forgotten about this but since becoming provenpackager I have
helped out in simple rebuilds or even version bumps on occasions and
have gotten positive feedback.
You mean that you didn't only send a patch but you did
On 07/02/2010 07:27 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:15:54PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I had forgotten about this but since becoming provenpackager I have
helped out in simple rebuilds or even version bumps on occasions and
have gotten positive feedback.
You mean that
On 07/02/2010 07:37 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Ok, this policy was for the other case, a case when the maintainer
does not respond. I am not saying that it happens a lot, but it
happened in the past, and the syslog-ng case exposed in the thread is
another recent case. Maybe a policy is not
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:28:09PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
I don't think it really matters what we call it, I just think that
package maintainers are starting to get a sense of entitlement and I
feel that's counter productive to the open environment we're used to
and are trying to help
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:44:29 -0400
Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
I think it's counterproductive to downgrade that
responsibility, or even worse pretend that it doesn't matter --- and
Kevin's lead statement in this thread is damn close to pretending
that. Sorry Kevin,
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
We need groups, with grouped privileges/acls etc. It's essentially
what e.g. the perl-sig originally was meant to be.
Yes, group ACLs are definitely needed, but in addition to that technical
feature, we also need to make sure that the SIG actually gets commit access
to
Thomas Janssen wrote:
You have to accept the maintainers decision to not update it yet? What
do you think will happen if everyone builds the wishes he has and
breaks a lot of stuff with it? Anarchy? We have processes for that in
Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Maintainers
David Woodhouse wrote:
In the old days of RHL and beehive, I think we had it about right...
with the obvious exception that it was Red Hat only, but the attitude to
packaging was right, IMHO. There _was_ someone who knew most about a
package and was expected to deal with it most of the time,
On 07/03/2010 03:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
David Woodhouse wrote:
In the old days of RHL and beehive, I think we had it about right...
with the obvious exception that it was Red Hat only, but the attitude to
packaging was right, IMHO. There _was_ someone who knew most about a
package and was
So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a concept
of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word from usage
about maintainership.
I'm come from working as a maintainer in the kernel, and its long been
said that kernel maintainers don't *own* the code, they are
I agree. The relevant concept is not owner, but sucker, or victim.
When businessspeak people say someone owns a piece of work, what they
mean is to identify the person as the recipient of problems, complaints,
pleas for help, and perhaps even, rarely, praise, regarding the state of
the work. We
Dave Airlie wrote:
So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a concept
of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word from usage
about maintainership.
+1
IMHO any sponsored packager should be free to do changes which benefit the
Fedora Project to any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd also
make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a problem. You see a
problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the package has an
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:16:35 +1000
Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a
concept of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word
from usage about maintainership.
...snip...
I agree. I think 'stewards' or 'guardian'
I don't think it really matters what we call it, I just think that
package maintainers are starting to get a sense of entitlement and I
feel that's counter productive to the open environment we're used to
and are trying to help continue to grow.
The package owner gets emails about cvs commits, so
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700
Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely,
that'd also make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com writes:
Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
While I agree that package ownership should not feel possessive, I
do strongly feel that there still should be some single person (or
team I suppose...) who is ultimately responsible for the package. A
place
On 07/02/2010 06:34 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700
Jesse Keatingjkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely,
that'd also
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:44:29 -0400
Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
Yeah. There needs to be somebody in the Fedora community with a
long-term commitment to each package. Perhaps the term owner is
politically incorrect but nonetheless there is always going to be
somebody who knows more about
49 matches
Mail list logo
