Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:54:33 -0600 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin F. Quinn wrote: If you don't care whether a package is stable or not, just let the arch team go ahead and do what they need to do to stabilise when they wish to. The role of package maintainer has nothing to do with stabilisation, which is the preserve of the arch teams. Um, sure it does. We're not going to stabilize something without attempting to contact the maintainer first. If it's maintainer-needed we'll just go ahead though. Yeah; I meant that ebuild maintainers don't do stabilisation, the arch teams do, and that if the ebuild maintainer isn't interested in whether the package is stable or not, they can leave it for the arch team (and ATs) to do. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:57:10 +0200 Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin F. Quinn wrote: I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the tree without taking responsibility for it. sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I cannot test the thing. Then you should not have committed it - as a dev it is your responsibility to test any ebuilds your commit. There's nothing stopping you doing the normal checks on the ebuild, even if you can't read Hebrew. For example you should verify whether the '-j1' is really necessary on emake. Furthermore I am actually part of maintainer-needed and commit fixes there. I am also on the maintainer-needed email alias. For a start, maintainer-needed is just a mail alias, it is not a herd and never can be, by definition. See http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/herds.xml. The point of a herd is to provide a contact for maintenance of the member packages - and maintainer-needed by definition does not do maintenance. Also maintainer-needed makes obvious to everyone that they do not have to ask me to fix sth. or take over the package - less communication overhead. You can put notes into metadata.xml - see other instances for examples; the easiest way is to have two maintainer entries, and in the description field describe the maintenance arrangement. Putting maintainer-needed as the herd just means the package is essentially unmaintained, and is a candidate for removal. We should not be putting stuff into the official tree if no dev has taken responsibility for it. I would expect that either the herd is set appropriately (which means either the committer be a member of the herd, or the herd explicitly agree to be proxy), which is the case here. See above - maintainer-needed does not satisfy the requirements of the herd entry. or the committer be listed as a maintainer email address along with whoever is being proxied. the committer in this case has no interest in maintaining the thing. Even more reason the package should acquire a dev to maintain it, or be removed from the tree. And for proxying it does not matter who is proxying. Proxying is more than just doing whatever the non-dev says. By committing to the tree, you take full responsibility for those commits. Further I believe bugs against such packages should be assigned to the @gentoo.org address (proxy maintainer if there is one, herd otherwise), and CC'ed to the proxied maintainer address. this does not allow the actual maintainer to close the bug and causes a lot of bugspam for a person who does not care about it and should be only contacted in the end to commit fixes/patches/bumps. Whoever does the commit takes formal responsibility for those commits. Therefore they should take note of bug activity relating to those commits. If they don't care about that then they should not be acting as proxy in that case. Surely this is what the Sunrise overlay was for; user-supplied ebuilds that don't have a a Gentoo dev to take responsibility for maintenance. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:57:10PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Kevin F. Quinn wrote: I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the tree without taking responsibility for it. sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I cannot test the thing. Furthermore I am actually part of maintainer-needed and commit fixes there. I am also on the maintainer-needed email alias. Also maintainer-needed makes obvious to everyone that they do not have to ask me to fix sth. or take over the package - less communication overhead. Ok, let me see if I can get this straight.. You're saying that maintainer-needed requires less communication overhead compared to ebuilds with maintainers assigned? And that maintainer-needed is therefore better than ebuilds having maintainers. I don't even want to comment on how insane I find that line of thought.. I would expect that either the herd is set appropriately (which means either the committer be a member of the herd, or the herd explicitly agree to be proxy), which is the case here. Maintainer-needed being the waste basket for unmaintained packages in the portage tree that doesn't give me a lot of confidence tbh. or the committer be listed as a maintainer email address along with whoever is being proxied. the committer in this case has no interest in maintaining the thing. And for proxying it does not matter who is proxying. Of course it matters. There's a big difference between a proxy maintainer having to ask a *specific* dev that's proxying his ebuild updates/changes or trying to find a random dev willing to help. Further I believe bugs against such packages should be assigned to the @gentoo.org address (proxy maintainer if there is one, herd otherwise), and CC'ed to the proxied maintainer address. this does not allow the actual maintainer to close the bug and causes a lot of bugspam for a person who does not care about it and should be only contacted in the end to commit fixes/patches/bumps. Shouldn't matter too much as a gentoo dev is still responsible for the package? Nobody shoud be adding stuff to portage without taking responsibility for it. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Sunday 03 September 2006 13:57, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Kevin F. Quinn wrote: I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the tree without taking responsibility for it. sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I cannot test the thing. Furthermore I am actually part of maintainer-needed and commit fixes there. I am also on the maintainer-needed email alias. Also maintainer-needed makes obvious to everyone that they do not have to ask me to fix sth. or take over the package - less communication overhead. For this stuff, add a comment to the metadata.xml file. Don't do it in this less than obvious way. The maintainer must still be someone with a gentoo email. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgppqk7iNIoRS.pgp Description: PGP signature
