On 2022-03-03 15:47, Sandro Mani wrote: > > On 03.03.22 15:30, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > So, I explicitely asked what your plan was and got no response. > > > > I suggested to fix the problem at the root package and you went ahead > rebuilding depending packages. > > > > I asked you to use proper commit messages/changelog if you do and got a > series of "Rebuild (leptonica)", "Bump as F36 needs another rebuild" and > what not. > > > > I asked you to at least reference the bz entries and you did not. > > > > While I'm typing this a buildroot override comes along. > > > > We do have an "unresponsive maintainer" process. Do we have an > "unresponsive irreponsible proven packager" process, too? > > To be honest I'm saddened by such hostility. I maintain a pretty large > number of packages mostly in my free time, and I think it's fair to say > that I maintain most of the mingw and stack alone. I undertook a pretty > large effort to merge some mingw specs into the native specs reduce my > workload in the future, often working late into the night. At one point > I did 197 commits in one day, and for as much effort and concentration I > put into it, mistakes do happen - I am only human. But I think I've > always been responsive and taken care to address any issues in a timely > matter. So honestly, rather than attacking people for commit messages > and attacking me for "the problems I caused last time", you might might > consider using a more friendly tone. > > Sandro > > Ciao Sandro
First of all, I appreciate your taking the time to clarify this (and also the time you invest into Fedora). I completely agree with you that communication is key. That is actually my point, and that's why the guidelines require or strongly suggest communication when a library change affects dependent packages or when a proven packager commits into "someone else's" packages (I know nobody "owns" a package). And I'm not insisting on any points literally here - I'm completely fine with a push from which I can tell what's going on, even without prior communication or coordination. We have pull requests, we have bugzilla entries, we have commit messages to support communication in many ways, it does not have to be by e-mail. What offends me is complete "non-communication": if, as a proven packager, you push "Rebuild (tesseract)" to mupdf.git I have to find out myself why you can even push to that repo, why you are doing that, and I have to live with that non-descriptive changelog entry (due to %autochangelog). Plus I have to close the non-referenced bugs. That's what happened "last time" (december), and even though it bothered me quite a bit I didn't complain. Now, since we're having the same with leptonica, I *asked* you to do it differently. What I got in response was no response but the same kind of pushes. I consider that inappropriate, and the tone of my last posting was a desperate attempt to get some form of communication going. Let me point out that I don't blame you for packaging mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. Communication can help avoid some of them, though, and sometimes even the time it takes to communicate helps avoiding some mistakes such as the rush of build-build again. To emphasize: if you "mess up" (everybody does) you don't have to clean up all by yourself, just get the process started and everyone involved. So, please reconsider your communication strategy as a proven packager. Freedom friends first! Michael
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
