"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <mac...@opencsw.org> writes: > 2013/8/11 Peter FELECAN <pfele...@opencsw.org>: >>> When you're running csw-upload-pkg, it's too late. All such >>> information must be inside the package, and that means it has to be >>> done in GAR. Probably as a field in pkginfo. >> >> How's that? The association is not done yet. That this association is >> based on what's in the package I understand. What I don't understand is >> how it's too late: the association is made after the invocation of >> csw-upload-pkg and this can be inhibited in any system that I can >> imagine, directly or by side effect. > > Yes, but inhibited based on what data? The only data the system has, > is the contents of the package. > >> Consequently, if you tell me where >> is the code responsible for the association I can review it and propose >> a concrete modification. > > Is this the line you have in mind? This is where the mantis database > update is done: > http://sourceforge.net/p/opencsw-ruby/code/ci/master/tree/lib/csw/db/mantis.rb#l112
Yes. So, when csw-upload-pkg was invoked with --nmo, it must not modify p.maintainer.username. But that is only the effect. We need to find a place where the cause became reality. >>> 1. When you upload a package, you become the package owner/maintainer. >> >> The systematic of this association is what's annoying me. > > I think it should be named for what it is: who last uploaded the > package. This is a useful piece of information and we should not > inhibit it. So, we must have another information which is the uploader, displayed on our web infrastructure. Cannot be taken from the user name of who's running csw-upload-pkg? >>> 2. A package owner/maintainer is responsible for everything that's >>> associated with the package, e.g. any current and future bugs. >> >> This is not axiomatic and is what I wish to reasonably relax. > > Cool. We'll probably find a middle ground. A lot of that expectation > revolves around wording used on our website. As said above, we should add the information of the user having done the NMU but keep the mantis ownership of the project. >>> 3. You have a small contribution to make. >> >> Quite often. If it's a maintained package I discuss it first with the >> relevant person. >> >>> 4. The benefit of the contribution does not outweigh the burden. >> >> Again, it's not a question of burden but responsible >> management. Dilution of responsibility is a very bad thing and is, >> unfortunately, encountered more and more often in enterprise >> environment. Lets not replicate that. > > We're very different from an enterprise environment. In enterprise, > the employer pays for the employee's time, and the employee's > obligation is to use the time in the way the employer wishes. In an > open source project, people offer contributions based on their innate > motivation. If someone doesn't want to perform a certain task, there > is no way you can make them do it. If you try, they will simply walk > away. Agree with you. However, this doesn't diminish the need for responsibility even though it's a voluntary responsibility: nobody force somebody to be responsible of something. In the case in discussion the current procedure induced by csw-upload-pkg &co force me to became the maintainer which I don't wish because, in some cases, I'm just an opportunistic actor. >>> 5. Therefore, you do not make the contribution. >> >> Even with the incurred burden I make it. The proof is in the logs. > > haha, I don't mean you personally. :) it's an expression as in > "brushing your teeth is healthy". I can rephrase it as "people are > less likely to contribute". If we solve the issue in discussion we will have more contribution at least from my part. >>> You think that #2 is fine and you want to fix #1. >> >> Not exactly. >> >>> I think that #1 is fine and I want to fix #2. >> >> We disagree on the "fineness" of #1 and this affirmation is in >> contradiction with the answer that you give to my question about the >> worthiness of my proposition. > > I understand that you didn't mean that the solution absolutely has to > be a flag for csw-upload-pkg. You probably mean some method of > indicating that you don't want your name to appear on the package's > page. There are many possible ways to achieve that. (Also, I do > believe that if you're building and pushing the package, it should be > somehow reflected on the website.) Is not that I don't want my name associated. On the contrary. If I've done a NMU it must appear in our web infrastructure, e.g. on the QA page, along the true owner of the package. By owner I mean the person which is most willing to work on the package, to correct possible bugs, bump version, &c. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
