Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:51:36 + Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Bug-wranglers are supposed to do that by default. When you see a non-gentoo developer in metadata.xml, the default action is to assume his is the real maintainer and the bugs should be assigned to him. Such guidance should be documented in the bug-wranglers project page and not on the proxy-maintainers one. The b-w project page already explains how you can get someone in the Assignee field: by listing them first. Nothing needs to change except people's desire to format metadata.xml in whatever pretty pleases them. For anyone who doesn't want to go and look it up: The bug's Assignee field will have: 1) First listed maintainer from the top of the file 2) Lacking maintainer tags, the first listed herd tag The bug's CC field will contain every maintainer and herd left, except upstream ones. Elaborate descriptionAssign to this person when in doubt, but not during a full moon/description tags are likely to get ignored. Tags like maintainer restrict=gt;=sys-boot/grub-2... complicate matters slightly, but are much more useful than description tags (or !-- comments --, FCOL) that explain intricate hierarchical maintainer modes. Regards, jer
Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
On 5 December 2012 02:51, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 4 December 2012 17:28, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote: On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Or maybe we can just agree that common sense rules all, and we always set the proxied maintainer as assignee, and the proxy maintainer as CC.. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/proxy-maintainers/index.xml?style=printable This page exists, but doesn't really mention anything about proper bug assignment. I know a lot of you have been doing this a very long time and there is a 'standard' way of doing things, but for us new guys if there is no documentation there is no policy. Bug-wranglers are supposed to do that by default. When you see a non-gentoo developer in metadata.xml, the default action is to assume his is the real maintainer and the bugs should be assigned to him. Such guidance should be documented in the bug-wranglers project page and not on the proxy-maintainers one. Actually, as I have been arguing elsewhere, scattering policies over multiple documents is not helpful. So this should be documented in devmanual. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
On 6 December 2012 11:02, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 5 December 2012 02:51, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 4 December 2012 17:28, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote: On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Or maybe we can just agree that common sense rules all, and we always set the proxied maintainer as assignee, and the proxy maintainer as CC.. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/proxy-maintainers/index.xml?style=printable This page exists, but doesn't really mention anything about proper bug assignment. I know a lot of you have been doing this a very long time and there is a 'standard' way of doing things, but for us new guys if there is no documentation there is no policy. Bug-wranglers are supposed to do that by default. When you see a non-gentoo developer in metadata.xml, the default action is to assume his is the real maintainer and the bugs should be assigned to him. Such guidance should be documented in the bug-wranglers project page and not on the proxy-maintainers one. Actually, as I have been arguing elsewhere, scattering policies over multiple documents is not helpful. So this should be documented in devmanual. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin This policy is for the bug-wranglers project, which someone must read before he attempts to do any bug-wrangling. I see no reason to move this to devmanual. However, it is possible to add a note on metadata.xml section in devmanual to explain how to structure a metadata.xml file for proxy maintainers. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
Markos Chandras wrote: This policy is for the bug-wranglers project, which someone must read before he attempts to do any bug-wrangling. I see no reason to move this to devmanual. The reason is that I as a developer (whenever I become one) want to be able to fix stuff right now that is broken on my system and publish those fixes somewhere. I believe and hope that working with bugs will see new approaches when the warm git blanket is swept around the portage repo. In the last 15 hours I've dealt with several trivial bugs that I've found fixes for in bugzilla but which were not committed anywhere. I've committed them to my overlay and that's fine for me, but if I were a developer I would find it super lame to have to stop there and wait for $otherguy to take time to look at his bugs. The bugs are equally much mine, because they bite me. I'm not saying I expect to change everyone's ebuilds, but I'm saying that I think the bug tracker has way more emphasis today than I would like it to. I think most of that is because it simply couldn't have worked any other way. In the future it might, and I think that's good. I would expect to fix the bugs, and then email patches to whoever is the maintainer. It would be worthwhile to have automatic extraction of who needs to get that email based on what files were touched. No bug needed, if maintainers get perfect patches in email they can review them quickly and simply push them into the tree. End result: Everyone has mandate to fix bugs and it becomes so easy for maintainers to apply fixes that they can do it immediately when anyone sends a perfect patch. The dream scenario would be a gerrit instance in front of the repo. (Yes infra, that means Java. Sorry, but that tool is best in class IMO.) Finally my thanks to everyone who helps make Gentoo better every day! //Peter
Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/12/12 10:27 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: [ Snip! ] In the last 15 hours I've dealt with several trivial bugs that I've found fixes for in bugzilla but which were not committed anywhere. I've committed them to my overlay and that's fine for me, but if I were a developer I would find it super lame to have to stop there and wait for $otherguy to take time to look at his bugs. [ Snip! ] I would expect to fix the bugs, and then email patches to whoever is the maintainer. It would be worthwhile to have automatic extraction of who needs to get that email based on what files were touched. No bug needed, if maintainers get perfect patches in email they can review them quickly and simply push them into the tree. There's a bit of an issue with this, though -- for many projects, and many bugs, patches are not committed to the tree until that bug and patch has been submitted upstream (job of the maintainer) and upstream has approved or accepted that patch. I think quite often this is why patches sit in bugs instead of getting to the tree. Essentially, if the problem is with the ebuild or the way the package is integrated into gentoo, then fixing it immediately is fine. If the problem is with the software itself, then usually upstream needs to be involved before the fix will occur in gentoo. Also, Emailing patches to the maintainer is much less acceptable/desirable than filing them through bugzilla. As a developer, I find it much easier to grab patches from this nice centralized bug-tracking filing system than to have to organize them in email, and git integration is not something I see changing this. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlDAv7EACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCQ/QEAmYjna1exh9qxqptbdB08Hvoo TzJi72ux2nf9edZsR3IA+wXENBA1EDuc/8JDN74aJ0/iFdhL1yG2CxJ515tNDxxX =4d2v -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
Ian Stakenvicius wrote: Essentially, if the problem is with the ebuild or the way the package is integrated into gentoo, then fixing it immediately is fine. If the problem is with the software itself, then usually upstream needs to be involved before the fix will occur in gentoo. Yes that's fair of course. None of the handful issues I've had so far while building 900 packages were about upstream however. Also, Emailing patches to the maintainer is much less acceptable/desirable than filing them through bugzilla. As a developer, I find it much easier to grab patches from this nice centralized bug-tracking filing system than to have to organize them in email, and git integration is not something I see changing this. Have you tried gerrit? It is really a leap ahead. //Peter
Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
On 6 December 2012 15:27, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Markos Chandras wrote: This policy is for the bug-wranglers project, which someone must read before he attempts to do any bug-wrangling. I see no reason to move this to devmanual. The reason is that I as a developer (whenever I become one) want to be able to fix stuff right now that is broken on my system and publish those fixes somewhere. ... I am not sure I understand how this is related to this discussion. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 04/12/2012 08:01, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote: I feel the description field is already overloaded when there is a proxy situation, maybe it would be best to define a field for this. Also english isn't primary language for everyone in the world so if the policy could actually be specific on this it would benefit everyone. Or maybe we can just agree that common sense rules all, and we always set the proxied maintainer as assignee, and the proxy maintainer as CC.. because, you know, that's the only way a proxy maintainer can close/change a bug at all. That is a very good point. But being that it's a very good point it obviously never occurred to me that it shouldn't be spelled out in the metadata. Is there a policy for this as well that I am unaware of? A quick site:devmanual.gentoo.org proxy search indicates no documentation of this at all. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/proxy-maintainers/index.xml?style=printable This page exists, but doesn't really mention anything about proper bug assignment. I know a lot of you have been doing this a very long time and there is a 'standard' way of doing things, but for us new guys if there is no documentation there is no policy. - -Zero -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQvjK5AAoJEKXdFCfdEflKQIUQALGbqDUONaKpQk4xLYDXDTQE gC7x7MMEyyBveZ3F2aZc/9IvWAzGYU0rQg7qOeEY8v6CLEDsNvi1mOQinhTNaJiv wnnk6NbnFrDEtBx5/J/3HDoR1PMFaCsAXM6Gd4vfMbtLYH3093COS5IyvBNP4oFB 3FQ+/kBZo9xN3TCpqxBCIjSZoR8aqxd4U6Px4o8KEKrDAkR9czyPRnqRAYb85ch1 qW37YOB2/MrYt1qDNo7m9NIQwmHVnThjkTqR/dzwxAEN7OEpo3MOXi0BX9CKb/kg 1Gp0XDE8iKzb3grnECZ+og4oyBWwZ9ydtGHOW7Vqa85CB2Zk2CkDPAq7RctYlS0t ItzBhSCDzuRjm3Y5J5jBrz0WaIMKfMQHqJR5ETXDnZmQIN39EqKb+oZYe1ei5hIJ LmX3zvjF9DVquC/JUQ2yeS/0m2YmF7G56dlE8OII7PlechpYb6pCyPoGttPcuI51 vUy+es8Ib8a2wqFHgpbmcbT37fJ/UVI0FgEuR6YV3ZH+uRwHcpLC8T7cIaTtI59Q mwIbFOu1+7JlNzJ3kEwZvY1ySuji8t8HbnBAWg6ehhaySbzijywlQtJCkyoUC+1I AMYkR085XWtomDss113E/c/cJqdn4UzzYR3C6gSyVf1iDqd4XgaG3AR2BGzKAiGr /J5yITUtwA99CNEpz6d8 =IukP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
On 04/12/2012 10:35, Sergey Popov wrote: Agreed. I add description field to metadata for proxying packages, cause i see such field in other packages' metadata. That is it. But it would be better when this became official policy. At least - define actual maintainer first, even if he is not developer - this would never confuse scripts for automated bug filing Yes if you notice I usually go around changing the order if I find the order not matching the instruction, as the output of Portage, and thus my script, use the first as assignee and the rest as CC. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)
On 4 December 2012 17:28, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 04/12/2012 08:01, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote: I feel the description field is already overloaded when there is a proxy situation, maybe it would be best to define a field for this. Also english isn't primary language for everyone in the world so if the policy could actually be specific on this it would benefit everyone. Or maybe we can just agree that common sense rules all, and we always set the proxied maintainer as assignee, and the proxy maintainer as CC.. because, you know, that's the only way a proxy maintainer can close/change a bug at all. That is a very good point. But being that it's a very good point it obviously never occurred to me that it shouldn't be spelled out in the metadata. Is there a policy for this as well that I am unaware of? A quick site:devmanual.gentoo.org proxy search indicates no documentation of this at all. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/proxy-maintainers/index.xml?style=printable This page exists, but doesn't really mention anything about proper bug assignment. I know a lot of you have been doing this a very long time and there is a 'standard' way of doing things, but for us new guys if there is no documentation there is no policy. Bug-wranglers are supposed to do that by default. When you see a non-gentoo developer in metadata.xml, the default action is to assume his is the real maintainer and the bugs should be assigned to him. Such guidance should be documented in the bug-wranglers project page and not on the proxy-maintainers one. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
