Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
2013/6/14 Adrian Knoth > On 06/06/2013 01:18 AM, Alessio Treglia wrote: > > >> If nobody wants to help comaintain a package for M days, the package > >> should be moved to collab-maint or some other area. > >> The principle is similar to the wnpp mails sent to -devel. > > I'd definitely second that. > > The maintainer's chat up line: "Do you want to be my second uploader?" ;) > > > That said, feel free to put me as second uploader for any of the usual > pro-audio packages. > Hi Adrian, I would be happy to see you as 2nd uploader in any of my packages, but I prefer that you will do it by yourself. At least it will be clear that given package interest you. I am not sure if pro-audio mean same for me and you ;) regards mira ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 even though i'm still neither DM nor DD i'd happily volunteer to become 2nd maintainer of all pd-* related packages on this list, namely: On 2013-06-13 16:32, Felipe Sateler wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner - pd-arraysize - 0.0 - > pd-bassemu - 0.0 - pd-beatpipe - 0.0 - pd-boids - > 0.0 - pd-bsaylor - 0.0 - pd-chaos - 0.0 - > pd-comport - 0.0 - pd-cxc - 0.0 - pd-earplug - 0.0 > - pd-ekext - 0.0 - pd-ext13 - 0.0 - > pd-fftease - 0.0 - pd-freeverb - 0.0 - pd-ggee - > 0.0 - pd-hcs - 0.0 - pd-hid - 0.0 - > pd-jmmmp - 0.0 - pd-libdir - 0.0 - pd-list-abs - > 0.0 - pd-lyonpotpourri - 0.0 - pd-mapping - 0.0 - > pd-markex - 0.0 - pd-maxlib - 0.0 - pd-mjlib - 0.0 > - pd-moonlib - 0.0 - pd-motex - 0.0 - > pd-pan - 0.0 - pd-pddp - 0.0 - pd-pdogg - 0.0 - > pd-plugin - 0.0 - pd-purepd - 0.0 - pd-sigpack - > 0.0 - pd-smlib - 0.0 - pd-unauthorized - 0.0 - > pd-vbap - 0.0 - pd-windowing - 0.0 - > puredata-import - 0.0 Roman Haefeli - pd-flite - 0.0 - > pd-pdstring - 0.0 - pd-wiimote - 0.0 fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlG+vnwACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQaSwCeMakdfRlYE5Nc0n2A10JAA9w8 +AEAn0Ox6/PR9wUcr1aitKpq0Y6643kg =417w -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
On 06/06/2013 01:18 AM, Alessio Treglia wrote: >> If nobody wants to help comaintain a package for M days, the package >> should be moved to collab-maint or some other area. >> The principle is similar to the wnpp mails sent to -devel. > I'd definitely second that. The maintainer's chat up line: "Do you want to be my second uploader?" ;) That said, feel free to put me as second uploader for any of the usual pro-audio packages. Cheers ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
2013/6/14 Felipe Sateler > > But the reason I started from the sql database > is to make sure the packages are actually present in debian, and not > just WIP. > It was just idea. ;) Your work will be very helpful! best regards mira ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: > 2013/6/13 Felipe Sateler >> >> >> Yes, of course. I have a script now that can generate the list, but I >> don't know how to mail it. I'm pasting the result of running it now. >> Unfortunately, UDD seems to be slightly borked (the upload_history >> table is empty), so we can't know for how long the packages have been >> without a second uploader (it displays 0 for all of them). When this >> is fixed we would know. > > > Wouldn't be better to have script which search repos in pkg-multimedia? > I just added myself as uploader to couple of packages, > but it will not change result of your script till packages will be uploaded. It could be, but my programming languages of choice are not supported on alioth... so I made a (not so) simple sql query instead plus a quick python script to format the output. You are more than invited to write a such script ;). But the reason I started from the sql database is to make sure the packages are actually present in debian, and not just WIP. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
2013/6/13 Felipe Sateler > > Yes, of course. I have a script now that can generate the list, but I > don't know how to mail it. I'm pasting the result of running it now. > Unfortunately, UDD seems to be slightly borked (the upload_history > table is empty), so we can't know for how long the packages have been > without a second uploader (it displays 0 for all of them). When this > is fixed we would know. > Wouldn't be better to have script which search repos in pkg-multimedia? I just added myself as uploader to couple of packages, but it will not change result of your script till packages will be uploaded. regards mira ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: > > > > 2013/6/6 Felipe Sateler > > Hi Felipe, > >> >> We seem to have 177 violations of the rule :s. >> >> I've used udd to get the results (script below), I'll improve this so >> we can get the date, and then we can use alioth to send the emails. >> > > can you publish a list of violations? I am sure that I am only uploader in > couple of packages. > It would be easier for me find them and ask 2nd uploader. Yes, of course. I have a script now that can generate the list, but I don't know how to mail it. I'm pasting the result of running it now. Unfortunately, UDD seems to be slightly borked (the upload_history table is empty), so we can't know for how long the packages have been without a second uploader (it displays 0 for all of them). When this is fixed we would know. Alessandro Ghedini - ecasound - 0.0 Alessio Treglia - abgate - 0.0 - aj-snapshot - 0.0 - audiofile - 0.0 - autotalent - 0.0 - avw.lv2 - 0.0 - azr3-jack - 0.0 - bitstream - 0.0 - dino - 0.0 - drumkv1 - 0.0 - dssi - 0.0 - dvd-slideshow - 0.0 - dvdwizard - 0.0 - ffprobe - 0.0 - fomp - 0.0 - gjacktransport - 0.0 - gscanbus - 0.0 - guayadeque - 0.0 - ino-headers - 0.0 - jack-rack - 0.0 - jack-stdio - 0.0 - jalv - 0.0 - jokosher - 0.0 - laborejo - 0.0 - ladish - 0.0 - laditools - 0.0 - libavc1394 - 0.0 - libdssialsacompat - 0.0 - libdv - 0.0 - libdvbcsa - 0.0 - libshout-idjc - 0.0 - lilv - 0.0 - lv2 - 0.0 - lv2proc - 0.0 - lv2vocoder - 0.0 - lvtk - 0.0 - m2vrequantiser - 0.0 - mda-lv2 - 0.0 - meterec - 0.0 - mididings - 0.0 - mp3fs - 0.0 - mudita24 - 0.0 - mustang-plug - 0.0 - naspro-bridge-it - 0.0 - naspro-bridges - 0.0 - naspro-core - 0.0 - phasex - 0.0 - pugl - 0.0 - qjackrcd - 0.0 - qmidinet - 0.0 - qsynth - 0.0 - radium-compressor - 0.0 - rtaudio - 0.0 - rtmidi - 0.0 - samplv1 - 0.0 - seq24 - 0.0 - serd - 0.0 - silan - 0.0 - smtube - 0.0 - snd - 0.0 - sndobj - 0.0 - sooperlooper - 0.0 - sord - 0.0 - sratom - 0.0 - suil - 0.0 - swh-lv2 - 0.0 - swh-plugins - 0.0 - synthv1 - 0.0 - terminatorx - 0.0 - tetraproc - 0.0 - tsdecrypt - 0.0 - videotrans - 0.0 - volti - 0.0 - wxsvg - 0.0 - xcfa - 0.0 Andres Mejia - dirac - 0.0 - vdpau-video - 0.0 Arnout Engelen - stretchplayer - 0.0 Benjamin Drung - libsbsms - 0.0 - libsoxr - 0.0 - npapi-vlc - 0.0 - portsmf - 0.0 Christophe Mutricy - libass - 0.0 Etienne Millon - glyr - 0.0 Fabrice Coutadeur - ffdiaporama - 0.0 Felipe Sateler - ladspa-sdk - 0.0 Free Ekanayaka - blepvco - 0.0 - nekobee - 0.0 - omins - 0.0 - openmovieeditor - 0.0 - vkeybd - 0.0 Geoffroy Youri Berret - mpd-sima - 0.0 Gürkan Sengün - goattracker - 0.0 Hans-Christoph Steiner - pd-arraysize - 0.0 - pd-bassemu - 0.0 - pd-beatpipe - 0.0 - pd-boids - 0.0 - pd-bsaylor - 0.0 - pd-chaos - 0.0 - pd-comport - 0.0 - pd-cxc - 0.0 - pd-earplug - 0.0 - pd-ekext - 0.0 - pd-ext13 - 0.0 - pd-fftease - 0.0 - pd-freeverb - 0.0 - pd-ggee - 0.0 - pd-hcs - 0.0 - pd-hid - 0.0 - pd-jmmmp - 0.0 - pd-libdir - 0.0 - pd-list-abs - 0.0 - pd-lyonpotpourri - 0.0 - pd-mapping - 0.0 - pd-markex - 0.0 - pd-maxlib - 0.0 - pd-mjlib - 0.0 - pd-moonlib - 0.0 - pd-motex - 0.0 - pd-pan - 0.0 - pd-pddp - 0.0 - pd-pdogg - 0.0 - pd-plugin - 0.0 - pd-purepd - 0.0 - pd-sigpack - 0.0 - pd-smlib - 0.0 - pd-unauthorized - 0.0 - pd-vbap - 0.0 - pd-windowing - 0.0 - puredata-import - 0.0 Jaromír Mikeš - aliki - 0.0 - brp-pacu - 0.0 - dataquay - 0.0 - drc - 0.0 - ebumeter - 0.0 - gtklick - 0.0 - gxtuner - 0.0 - jmeters - 0.0 - jnoisemeter - 0.0 - libltc - 0.0 - midisnoop - 0.0 - qmidiroute - 0.0 - rubberband - 0.0 - showq - 0.0 - specimen - 0.0 - swami - 0.0 - tap-plugins - 0.0 - vamp-plugin-sdk - 0.0 - zita-lrx - 0.0 - zita-mu1 - 0.0 - zynaddsubfx - 0.0 Jeremy Salwen - so-synth-lv2 - 0.0 Jonas Smedegaard - bitmeter - 0.0 -
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
2013/6/6 Felipe Sateler Hi Felipe, > We seem to have 177 violations of the rule :s. > > I've used udd to get the results (script below), I'll improve this so > we can get the date, and then we can use alioth to send the emails. > > can you publish a list of violations? I am sure that I am only uploader in couple of packages. It would be easier for me find them and ask 2nd uploader. regards mira ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> Then, have a daily cron job scan the archive for packages maintained >> by the team, and flag packages with less than 2 uploaders older than N >> days. Send the resulting list to the team list. >> >> If nobody wants to help comaintain a package for M days, the package >> should be moved to collab-maint or some other area. >> >> The principle is similar to the wnpp mails sent to -devel. > > I find this a very interesting idea and would welcome its > implementation with or without enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule! We seem to have 177 violations of the rule :s. I've used udd to get the results (script below), I'll improve this so we can get the date, and then we can use alioth to send the emails. with duploaders AS ( select distinct source, version, name from uploaders ), latest AS ( select source, max(version) as version from sources where maintainer_email = 'pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org' group by source ), violators AS ( select latest.source, latest.version from latest inner join duploaders on latest.source = duploaders.source AND latest.version = duploaders.version group by latest.source, latest.version having count(duploaders.name) < 2 ) select violators.source, duploaders.name as uploader from violators inner join duploaders on violators.source = duploaders.source AND violators.version = duploaders.version order by source ; -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
On 5 June 2013 18:28, Felipe Sateler wrote: > If nobody wants to help comaintain a package for M days, the package > should be moved to collab-maint or some other area. > > The principle is similar to the wnpp mails sent to -devel. I'd definitely second that. Cheers. -- Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org Ubuntu Core Developer| quadris...@ubuntu.com 0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Fabian Greffrath >> wrote: >>> Am Dienstag, den 04.06.2013, 07:37 +0200 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: It still seems to lack a 2nd person to back up the package in the team. >>> >>> Hm, I question the purpose of this rule. It seems to me to keep useful >>> packages out of the archive; packages that I do not sign up for as an >>> Uploader, because I do not know about their existence, because they are >>> not in the archive... >> >> Well, it depends what you want pkg-multimedia to be. >> >> A package without a second supporter is de facto not team maintained, >> but maintained by a single person. You do not need a team for such >> packages, on contrary, they just add overhead to the team (as in, PET, >> mailing lists, team RC bug count, etc.). In these cases, I think you >> are much better off with keeping them in collab-maint. >> >> My motivation for enforcing this rule is to avoid pkg-multimedia >> becoming a specialized QA Team. I mean, seriously, if you want that, >> then please put "Debian QA Team" as maintainer. >> >> Also, please consider the bus factor. Imagine some pkg-multimedia >> member, who has introduced 20 packages to pkg-multimedia, gets hit by >> a bus. What is the team supposed to do with the packages? Since nobody >> else didn't even bother to put himself as uploader, it is quite likely >> that his 20 packages end up unmaintained. Again, orphaning the package >> seems like a good answer to that, which in this case is unlikely to >> happen since de jure, the package is labeled as "team maintained", >> although de facto, nobody cares for it. That's why consider packages >> without 2nd uploader as harmful to the team. >> >> I would therefore suggest to stage packages without maintainer in >> collab-maint, and as soon as a 2nd pkg-multimedia member agrees to >> support it, just move the repo to pkg-multimedia, and good. > > I agree with the principle behind the rule, but perhaps the rule is > not the best way to enforce the principle? > > Brainstorm follows, posibly lousy idea: > > Change the rule to say that packages maintained by the team cannot > have less than 2 uploaders, but first uploads are allowed to have only > one uploader. This could help in breaking the vicious loop presented > by Fabian. Hm, I think we already have packages in the team than we can handle, and I fear that this rule bears the risk of making the matter even worse. OTOH, we also must not stall development and new packages! So I'm wondering, is the 2nd maintainer rule really a problem? TBH, I think that preparing the package in collab-maint, and asking pkg-multimedia for uploading the package is in no way worse compared to having the package having in the team, and finding no uploader. Please don't misunderstand me, in no way I want to hinder great packages to enter Debian. My concerns are towards the reputation of team pkg-multimedia. > Then, have a daily cron job scan the archive for packages maintained > by the team, and flag packages with less than 2 uploaders older than N > days. Send the resulting list to the team list. > > If nobody wants to help comaintain a package for M days, the package > should be moved to collab-maint or some other area. > > The principle is similar to the wnpp mails sent to -devel. I find this a very interesting idea and would welcome its implementation with or without enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule! Cheers, -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: >> Am Dienstag, den 04.06.2013, 07:37 +0200 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: >>> It still seems to lack a 2nd person to back up the package in the team. >> >> Hm, I question the purpose of this rule. It seems to me to keep useful >> packages out of the archive; packages that I do not sign up for as an >> Uploader, because I do not know about their existence, because they are >> not in the archive... > > Well, it depends what you want pkg-multimedia to be. > > A package without a second supporter is de facto not team maintained, > but maintained by a single person. You do not need a team for such > packages, on contrary, they just add overhead to the team (as in, PET, > mailing lists, team RC bug count, etc.). In these cases, I think you > are much better off with keeping them in collab-maint. > > My motivation for enforcing this rule is to avoid pkg-multimedia > becoming a specialized QA Team. I mean, seriously, if you want that, > then please put "Debian QA Team" as maintainer. > > Also, please consider the bus factor. Imagine some pkg-multimedia > member, who has introduced 20 packages to pkg-multimedia, gets hit by > a bus. What is the team supposed to do with the packages? Since nobody > else didn't even bother to put himself as uploader, it is quite likely > that his 20 packages end up unmaintained. Again, orphaning the package > seems like a good answer to that, which in this case is unlikely to > happen since de jure, the package is labeled as "team maintained", > although de facto, nobody cares for it. That's why consider packages > without 2nd uploader as harmful to the team. > > I would therefore suggest to stage packages without maintainer in > collab-maint, and as soon as a 2nd pkg-multimedia member agrees to > support it, just move the repo to pkg-multimedia, and good. I agree with the principle behind the rule, but perhaps the rule is not the best way to enforce the principle? Brainstorm follows, posibly lousy idea: Change the rule to say that packages maintained by the team cannot have less than 2 uploaders, but first uploads are allowed to have only one uploader. This could help in breaking the vicious loop presented by Fabian. Then, have a daily cron job scan the archive for packages maintained by the team, and flag packages with less than 2 uploaders older than N days. Send the resulting list to the team list. If nobody wants to help comaintain a package for M days, the package should be moved to collab-maint or some other area. The principle is similar to the wnpp mails sent to -devel. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Enforcing the 2nd maintainer rule, was: Bug#444368: ITP: dvd95 -- DVD9 to DVD5 converter
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 04.06.2013, 07:37 +0200 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: >> It still seems to lack a 2nd person to back up the package in the team. > > Hm, I question the purpose of this rule. It seems to me to keep useful > packages out of the archive; packages that I do not sign up for as an > Uploader, because I do not know about their existence, because they are > not in the archive... Well, it depends what you want pkg-multimedia to be. A package without a second supporter is de facto not team maintained, but maintained by a single person. You do not need a team for such packages, on contrary, they just add overhead to the team (as in, PET, mailing lists, team RC bug count, etc.). In these cases, I think you are much better off with keeping them in collab-maint. My motivation for enforcing this rule is to avoid pkg-multimedia becoming a specialized QA Team. I mean, seriously, if you want that, then please put "Debian QA Team" as maintainer. Also, please consider the bus factor. Imagine some pkg-multimedia member, who has introduced 20 packages to pkg-multimedia, gets hit by a bus. What is the team supposed to do with the packages? Since nobody else didn't even bother to put himself as uploader, it is quite likely that his 20 packages end up unmaintained. Again, orphaning the package seems like a good answer to that, which in this case is unlikely to happen since de jure, the package is labeled as "team maintained", although de facto, nobody cares for it. That's why consider packages without 2nd uploader as harmful to the team. I would therefore suggest to stage packages without maintainer in collab-maint, and as soon as a 2nd pkg-multimedia member agrees to support it, just move the repo to pkg-multimedia, and good. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
