Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 08:31:05AM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> Thank you, this is great!
> 
> Those two seem to contradict each other:
> 
> # If you are a new packager seeking sponsorship via new package or reviews
> # please close this
> 
> and
> 
> # If you are a new packager seeking sponsorship after your new package
> submission
> # was approved, please note the link to that review and your background here
> # for sponsors to review.

Well, the first was intended to tell people to first get a package
approved before filing a ticket. Otherwise they would file the
sponsorship ticket before they even filed a review or before it's
approved and then the ticket would have to wait and clog up the tracker. 

> For the re-reviewing of orphaned packages, I opened a FESCo ticket [1] so it
> can be properly added to relevant policies, or have the decision logged that
> those should not be required.
> 
> [1]: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2734

ok. 

I'll comment there. 

Thanks for helping document all this better!

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Otto Urpelainen]

Kevin Fenzi kirjoitti 17.1.2022 klo 22.05:

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:47:13AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:07:33AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:


Just FTR, I don't think that as a sponsor, I can close the ticket and that
is a bit discouraging.


There's no way to tell pagure.io "everyone in the fedora packager group
thats a manager is a admin here", so I have manually been adding any
sponsor who replies to a ticket.

I suppose if we wanted we could manually list everyone out and add them
and then add new folks as they became sponsors.


Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type
tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for
more info, but then someone has to manage that.



You have already volunteered for providing the template, that should help to
solve this.


Hopefully. :)


ok. I have a first cut of a template there now.

Open a new issue and you should see it.

Happy to accept changes/additions/fixes via direct email or here.


Thank you, this is great!

Those two seem to contradict each other:

# If you are a new packager seeking sponsorship via new package or reviews
# please close this

and

# If you are a new packager seeking sponsorship after your new package 
submission
# was approved, please note the link to that review and your background 
here

# for sponsors to review.

For the re-reviewing of orphaned packages, I opened a FESCo ticket [1] 
so it can be properly added to relevant policies, or have the decision 
logged that those should not be required.


[1]: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2734
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:47:13AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:07:33AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > 
> > Just FTR, I don't think that as a sponsor, I can close the ticket and that
> > is a bit discouraging.
> 
> There's no way to tell pagure.io "everyone in the fedora packager group
> thats a manager is a admin here", so I have manually been adding any
> sponsor who replies to a ticket. 
> 
> I suppose if we wanted we could manually list everyone out and add them
> and then add new folks as they became sponsors. 
> 
> > > Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type
> > > tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for
> > > more info, but then someone has to manage that.
> > 
> > 
> > You have already volunteered for providing the template, that should help to
> > solve this.
> 
> Hopefully. :)

ok. I have a first cut of a template there now. 

Open a new issue and you should see it. 

Happy to accept changes/additions/fixes via direct email or here. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:07:33AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> 
> Just FTR, I don't think that as a sponsor, I can close the ticket and that
> is a bit discouraging.

There's no way to tell pagure.io "everyone in the fedora packager group
thats a manager is a admin here", so I have manually been adding any
sponsor who replies to a ticket. 

I suppose if we wanted we could manually list everyone out and add them
and then add new folks as they became sponsors. 

> > Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type
> > tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for
> > more info, but then someone has to manage that.
> 
> 
> You have already volunteered for providing the template, that should help to
> solve this.

Hopefully. :)

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 08. 01. 22 v 0:23 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):

On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:43:15PM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:

I can give a couple of reasons why just using the packager-sponsors tracker
always would be better. This is from the point of view of somebody who had
to find a sponsor. I am not a sponsor myself, so I do not really know this
looks from that side.

1. The process is currently so complicated that newcomers are frequently
confused and dissuaded by it. Having just a single way would make it
simpler. Of these two options, the single way would have to be the tracker,
because the FE-NEEDSPONSOR method only works for new package submissions.

2. In the tracker, you can write your "letter of application" in the
description, and add all the proof you have. So you can first evaluate
yourself, gather more proof if you think it will be needed, and only submit
an application when you feel you are ready. For FE-NEEDSPONSOR, it is not so
clear. The same thing can be done in the review request comments, of course.
But then the review request and the sponsorship request get mixed up, but
actually they are two different things.

3. It may be just my impression, but the system of adding the FE-NEEDSPONSOR
link feels a bit like "don't call us, we'll call you". Saying that you can
file an issue and it will be looked at feels more friendly and inviting.

Sure, I agree with all of that. However, If everyone who wanted to be
added to packager was told to file a issue, I am not at all sure we
can promise 'it would be looked at'. All the packager-sponsors tickets
go to everyone in the packager sponsors group, but I've only ever seen a
small fraction of them respond to any tickets. ;( I am not sure if thats
because they don't want to deal with sponsoring co-maintainers (the
current 'reason' to file a ticket there) or something else, but I worry
that it would just result in a big backlog of tickets there. :(



Just FTR, I don't think that as a sponsor, I can close the ticket and 
that is a bit discouraging.



  


Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type
tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for
more info, but then someone has to manage that.



You have already volunteered for providing the template, that should 
help to solve this.



Vít




OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 10:56:50PM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> 
> Ok, I start to see this better now. I was under the impression that both
> FE-NEEDSPONSOR and the tracker were on equal footing and generally speakin,
> receive similar attention from the sponsors. But, if the reason for having
> the tracker is (or: originally was) just the co-maintainer requests, where
> the primary maintainer actually mentors the new packager, then it makes
> sense that just a couple of sponsors keep an eye on that tracker and accept
> the request on behalf of the primary maintainers.
> 
> > Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type
> > tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for
> > more info, but then someone has to manage that.
> 
> One easy thing that can be done now is to add an issue template to the
> tracker repo.

Thats an excellent idea. I'll try and add one.
> 
> > > Apart from co-maintenance, the tracker is also important for the case 
> > > where
> > > somebody wants to become a pacakger to rescue an orphaned package.
> > 
> > Well, in the past we have asked such folks to file a review request and
> > get the orphaned package re-reviewed.
> 
> Interesting. Previously, there was no documented process for handling this
> case at all, so I wrote section "Adopting orphaned packages" [1] to How to
> Get Sponsored page. As you can see, that section currently points to the
> tracker. Do you think we should change that to ask for a re-review? The
> current wording is not just my invention, though. There was discussion on
> devel first, and the change went through a docs pull request.
> 
> In case a review is required, I would like to understand, why? My
> understanding was this: Orphaned packages are assumed to be is acceptable
> condition, because existing maintainers can adopt them without a review. The
> new packager are assumed to be equal to existing maintainers, because
> somebody has agreed to sponsor them and is available for mentoring as
> needed. Some caution is certainly needed, since some orphaned packages can
> be minefields, it just did not occur to me that package review would be the
> appropriate safeguard here.

I think the idea was that the person who wanted to take on the orphaned
package could suggest improvements to the existing package to prove that
they know guidelines, etc. At least it shows that they could show they
know the spec file and how to file a review, but I agree this is
somewhat 'make work'. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Otto Urpelainen]

Kevin Fenzi kirjoitti 8.1.2022 klo 1.23:

On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:43:15PM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:


I can give a couple of reasons why just using the packager-sponsors tracker
always would be better. This is from the point of view of somebody who had
to find a sponsor. I am not a sponsor myself, so I do not really know this
looks from that side.

1. The process is currently so complicated that newcomers are frequently
confused and dissuaded by it. Having just a single way would make it
simpler. Of these two options, the single way would have to be the tracker,
because the FE-NEEDSPONSOR method only works for new package submissions.

2. In the tracker, you can write your "letter of application" in the
description, and add all the proof you have. So you can first evaluate
yourself, gather more proof if you think it will be needed, and only submit
an application when you feel you are ready. For FE-NEEDSPONSOR, it is not so
clear. The same thing can be done in the review request comments, of course.
But then the review request and the sponsorship request get mixed up, but
actually they are two different things.

3. It may be just my impression, but the system of adding the FE-NEEDSPONSOR
link feels a bit like "don't call us, we'll call you". Saying that you can
file an issue and it will be looked at feels more friendly and inviting.


Sure, I agree with all of that. However, If everyone who wanted to be
added to packager was told to file a issue, I am not at all sure we
can promise 'it would be looked at'. All the packager-sponsors tickets
go to everyone in the packager sponsors group, but I've only ever seen a
small fraction of them respond to any tickets. ;( I am not sure if thats
because they don't want to deal with sponsoring co-maintainers (the
current 'reason' to file a ticket there) or something else, but I worry
that it would just result in a big backlog of tickets there. :(


Ok, I start to see this better now. I was under the impression that both 
FE-NEEDSPONSOR and the tracker were on equal footing and generally 
speakin, receive similar attention from the sponsors. But, if the reason 
for having the tracker is (or: originally was) just the co-maintainer 
requests, where the primary maintainer actually mentors the new 
packager, then it makes sense that just a couple of sponsors keep an eye 
on that tracker and accept the request on behalf of the primary maintainers.



Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type
tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for
more info, but then someone has to manage that.


One easy thing that can be done now is to add an issue template to the 
tracker repo.



Apart from co-maintenance, the tracker is also important for the case where
somebody wants to become a pacakger to rescue an orphaned package.


Well, in the past we have asked such folks to file a review request and
get the orphaned package re-reviewed.


Interesting. Previously, there was no documented process for handling 
this case at all, so I wrote section "Adopting orphaned packages" [1] to 
How to Get Sponsored page. As you can see, that section currently points 
to the tracker. Do you think we should change that to ask for a 
re-review? The current wording is not just my invention, though. There 
was discussion on devel first, and the change went through a docs pull 
request.


In case a review is required, I would like to understand, why? My 
understanding was this: Orphaned packages are assumed to be is 
acceptable condition, because existing maintainers can adopt them 
without a review. The new packager are assumed to be equal to existing 
maintainers, because somebody has agreed to sponsor them and is 
available for mentoring as needed. Some caution is certainly needed, 
since some orphaned packages can be minefields, it just did not occur to 
me that package review would be the appropriate safeguard here.


[1]: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/#adopting_orphaned_packages

___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:43:15PM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> 
> I can give a couple of reasons why just using the packager-sponsors tracker
> always would be better. This is from the point of view of somebody who had
> to find a sponsor. I am not a sponsor myself, so I do not really know this
> looks from that side.
> 
> 1. The process is currently so complicated that newcomers are frequently
> confused and dissuaded by it. Having just a single way would make it
> simpler. Of these two options, the single way would have to be the tracker,
> because the FE-NEEDSPONSOR method only works for new package submissions.
> 
> 2. In the tracker, you can write your "letter of application" in the
> description, and add all the proof you have. So you can first evaluate
> yourself, gather more proof if you think it will be needed, and only submit
> an application when you feel you are ready. For FE-NEEDSPONSOR, it is not so
> clear. The same thing can be done in the review request comments, of course.
> But then the review request and the sponsorship request get mixed up, but
> actually they are two different things.
> 
> 3. It may be just my impression, but the system of adding the FE-NEEDSPONSOR
> link feels a bit like "don't call us, we'll call you". Saying that you can
> file an issue and it will be looked at feels more friendly and inviting.

Sure, I agree with all of that. However, If everyone who wanted to be
added to packager was told to file a issue, I am not at all sure we
can promise 'it would be looked at'. All the packager-sponsors tickets
go to everyone in the packager sponsors group, but I've only ever seen a
small fraction of them respond to any tickets. ;( I am not sure if thats
because they don't want to deal with sponsoring co-maintainers (the
current 'reason' to file a ticket there) or something else, but I worry
that it would just result in a big backlog of tickets there. :( 

Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type
tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for
more info, but then someone has to manage that. 
> 
> Apart from co-maintenance, the tracker is also important for the case where
> somebody wants to become a pacakger to rescue an orphaned package.

Well, in the past we have asked such folks to file a review request and
get the orphaned package re-reviewed. 

To be clear, I'm happy to try and adjust things to make it simpiler as
long as we have buy in from sponsors that they would work with the new
process. :) 

Thanks for the feedback... hopefully we can come out of this with a
newer better process.

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Otto Urpelainen]

Kevin Fenzi kirjoitti 7.1.2022 klo 22.05:

On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 10:25:50PM +, Inglis, Malcolm via devel wrote:

Well, turns out https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors isn't allowing PRs.

I've pushed to a branch here with updates and dead-link-fixes for the README: 
https://pagure.io/fork/mcinglis/packager-sponsors/tree/pr-readme-update

@Kevin Fenzi , you're welcome to pull that (or use it) into the repo if you think it 
looks good. Aside link fixes, it conditionalizes the blurb about "don't apply for 
sponsorship unless you have packages that have gone through package review process", 
which I think is what deterred me here.


Thanks for the PR! Pushed.

Perhaps we could make things more clear here (or in the how to get
sponsored document). The intent is not to use the packager-sponsors
tracked for everyone who wants to be sponsored (although I suppose we
could consider doing that). It was only established for the cases where
someone wanted to add a co-maintainer and wasn't able to sponsor them
themselves or someone has a approved / reviewed package and no sponsor
lined up. I guess it makes sense to try and use it for any of the corner
cases that are not 'I don't intend to submit a new package but want to
be sponsored to do other things'.

If that all makes sense...


I can give a couple of reasons why just using the packager-sponsors 
tracker always would be better. This is from the point of view of 
somebody who had to find a sponsor. I am not a sponsor myself, so I do 
not really know this looks from that side.


1. The process is currently so complicated that newcomers are frequently 
confused and dissuaded by it. Having just a single way would make it 
simpler. Of these two options, the single way would have to be the 
tracker, because the FE-NEEDSPONSOR method only works for new package 
submissions.


2. In the tracker, you can write your "letter of application" in the 
description, and add all the proof you have. So you can first evaluate 
yourself, gather more proof if you think it will be needed, and only 
submit an application when you feel you are ready. For FE-NEEDSPONSOR, 
it is not so clear. The same thing can be done in the review request 
comments, of course. But then the review request and the sponsorship 
request get mixed up, but actually they are two different things.


3. It may be just my impression, but the system of adding the 
FE-NEEDSPONSOR link feels a bit like "don't call us, we'll call you". 
Saying that you can file an issue and it will be looked at feels more 
friendly and inviting.


Apart from co-maintenance, the tracker is also important for the case 
where somebody wants to become a pacakger to rescue an orphaned package.


Otto
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 10:25:50PM +, Inglis, Malcolm via devel wrote:
> Well, turns out https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors isn't allowing PRs.
> 
> I've pushed to a branch here with updates and dead-link-fixes for the README: 
> https://pagure.io/fork/mcinglis/packager-sponsors/tree/pr-readme-update 
> 
> @Kevin Fenzi , you're welcome to pull that (or use it) into the repo if you 
> think it looks good. Aside link fixes, it conditionalizes the blurb about 
> "don't apply for sponsorship unless you have packages that have gone through 
> package review process", which I think is what deterred me here.

Thanks for the PR! Pushed. 

Perhaps we could make things more clear here (or in the how to get
sponsored document). The intent is not to use the packager-sponsors
tracked for everyone who wants to be sponsored (although I suppose we
could consider doing that). It was only established for the cases where
someone wanted to add a co-maintainer and wasn't able to sponsor them
themselves or someone has a approved / reviewed package and no sponsor
lined up. I guess it makes sense to try and use it for any of the corner
cases that are not 'I don't intend to submit a new package but want to
be sponsored to do other things'. 

If that all makes sense...

kevin
--
> 
> Cheers,
> Malcolm
> 
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 21:30:02 +, Malcolm Inglis  wrote:
> > Thanks, Fabio!
> >
> > I'm sorry I missed the process to cut a ticket in packager-sponsors.
> > I've done that now: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/511
> >
> > That doc page was one of the few I was bouncing around until I opted
> > to email this list. That page linked to the repo's README, which then
> > linked "Procedure for new packagers" to
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
> > , which linked back to the original doc page. That page had a section
> > on "How to find a sponsor", which seemed to imply I'd need to find a
> > sponsor to volunteer *before* moving ahead. Meanwhile, I noticed that
> > several 'Self Introduction' emails on this list had sought and
> > received sponsorship, so I figured this was a way that would work.
> >
> > It may help if said doc page elaborated the process, perhaps by
> > describing an example request, and if the README on
> > `packager-sponsors` was also elaborated and updated to not link to
> > dead wikis. I can try to send some PRs to help out there.
> >
> > I understood why `packager` membership is required for various
> > infrastructure access; it makes perfect sense to avoid managing
> > effectively-free-world-writable storage :) I don't believe I raised
> > any contention there. The PR that Maxwell linked seems very appealing,
> > though. It would be great if PRs with new sources from
> > non-packager-members could pass CI without any action from
> > maintainers.
> >
> > The problem that Maxwell raised about sources updates is not one that
> > I've experienced. I've had a PR with new sources be accepted as-is
> > just fine (
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-prompt-toolkit/pull-request/1
> > ).  It's just that the CI run was failing (as per state of my other
> > outstanding PRs) until the maintainer stepped in.
> >
> > Cheers, Malcolm
> >
> > P.S. my apologies for letting my corporate mailserver rules mess up
> > the thread subject by adding '[EXTERNAL]'. I'll try to catch that in
> > future.
> 
> ___
> 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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Inglis, Malcolm via devel]

Well, turns out https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors isn't allowing PRs.

I've pushed to a branch here with updates and dead-link-fixes for the README: 
https://pagure.io/fork/mcinglis/packager-sponsors/tree/pr-readme-update 

@Kevin Fenzi , you're welcome to pull that (or use it) into the repo if you 
think it looks good. Aside link fixes, it conditionalizes the blurb about 
"don't apply for sponsorship unless you have packages that have gone through 
package review process", which I think is what deterred me here.

Cheers,
Malcolm

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 21:30:02 +, Malcolm Inglis  wrote:
> Thanks, Fabio!
>
> I'm sorry I missed the process to cut a ticket in packager-sponsors.
> I've done that now: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/511
>
> That doc page was one of the few I was bouncing around until I opted
> to email this list. That page linked to the repo's README, which then
> linked "Procedure for new packagers" to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
> , which linked back to the original doc page. That page had a section
> on "How to find a sponsor", which seemed to imply I'd need to find a
> sponsor to volunteer *before* moving ahead. Meanwhile, I noticed that
> several 'Self Introduction' emails on this list had sought and
> received sponsorship, so I figured this was a way that would work.
>
> It may help if said doc page elaborated the process, perhaps by
> describing an example request, and if the README on
> `packager-sponsors` was also elaborated and updated to not link to
> dead wikis. I can try to send some PRs to help out there.
>
> I understood why `packager` membership is required for various
> infrastructure access; it makes perfect sense to avoid managing
> effectively-free-world-writable storage :) I don't believe I raised
> any contention there. The PR that Maxwell linked seems very appealing,
> though. It would be great if PRs with new sources from
> non-packager-members could pass CI without any action from
> maintainers.
>
> The problem that Maxwell raised about sources updates is not one that
> I've experienced. I've had a PR with new sources be accepted as-is
> just fine (
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-prompt-toolkit/pull-request/1
> ).  It's just that the CI run was failing (as per state of my other
> outstanding PRs) until the maintainer stepped in.
>
> Cheers, Malcolm
>
> P.S. my apologies for letting my corporate mailserver rules mess up
> the thread subject by adding '[EXTERNAL]'. I'll try to catch that in
> future.

___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Inglis, Malcolm via devel]

Thanks, Fabio!

I'm sorry I missed the process to cut a ticket in packager-sponsors. I've done 
that now: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/511

That doc page was one of the few I was bouncing around until I opted to email 
this list. That page linked to the repo's README, which then linked "Procedure 
for new packagers" to 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers , which 
linked back to the original doc page. That page had a section on "How to find a 
sponsor", which seemed to imply I'd need to find a sponsor to volunteer 
*before* moving ahead. Meanwhile, I noticed that several 'Self Introduction' 
emails on this list had sought and received sponsorship, so I figured this was 
a way that would work.

It may help if said doc page elaborated the process, perhaps by describing an 
example request, and if the README on `packager-sponsors` was also elaborated 
and updated to not link to dead wikis. I can try to send some PRs to help out 
there.

I understood why `packager` membership is required for various infrastructure 
access; it makes perfect sense to avoid managing 
effectively-free-world-writable storage :) I don't believe I raised any 
contention there. The PR that Maxwell linked seems very appealing, though. It 
would be great if PRs with new sources from non-packager-members could pass CI 
without any action from maintainers.

The problem that Maxwell raised about sources updates is not one that I've 
experienced. I've had a PR with new sources be accepted as-is just fine ( 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-prompt-toolkit/pull-request/1 ). It's 
just that the CI run was failing (as per state of my other outstanding PRs) 
until the maintainer stepped in.

Cheers,
Malcolm

P.S. my apologies for letting my corporate mailserver rules mess up the thread 
subject by adding '[EXTERNAL]'. I'll try to catch that in future.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 18:27:31 +, "Fabio Valentini"  
wrote:
> Hi Malcolm,
>
> Welcome to Fedora! It's great to see more Amazon Linux people joining up. :)
>
> There *is* documentation for how to join the "packager" group, but it
> is sometimes not very discoverable, depending on the exact search
> terms you use ...
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/
>
> Making PRs and proving that you have understood the basics of Fedora /
> RPM packaging is a good step towards getting sponsored.
> If you want to go the direct route, you can open a ticket here, where
> you can apply for sponsorship into the packager group directly:
> https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors (don't forget to list your
> contributions to Fedora in the ticket, i.e. accepted PRs, non-binding
> package reviews, etc.)
>
> And, you are right, not being able to upload sources for new versions
> when making a PR is unfortunate. On the other hand, making it possible
> to upload arbitrary files to Fedora servers for "untrusted" users is
> not a good idea either. So we really don't have a good solution for
> that yet ...
> As Maxwell has noted in another reply, you can use a partial
> workaround for this problem - by updating the "sources" and
> ".gitignore" files (running "fedpkg new-sources --offline"). Then a
> packager group member can just upload the actual file(s) to the cache
> and merge the PR - and this then doesn't require any additional
> commits or changes to your PR.
>
> Fabio / decathorpe
> ___
> 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

___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Fabio Valentini]

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 11:28 PM Inglis, Malcolm via devel
 wrote:
>
> Is someone willing to sponsor me into the `packager` group? I'd appreciate it!
>
> (I was bouncing around the documentation for that, but it seems there's no 
> formalized process currently - sorry if I missed something)
>
> I have two outstanding PRs that I think are hanging on uploading new sources 
> to the Lookaside Cache: 
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nfs-utils/pull-request/10 , 
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libesmtp/pull-request/1
>
> I've been, and hope to continue, contributing small fixes for various 
> packages that I've noticed while working on AL packaging, and in regular 
> personal usage. Over time, I hope to do more.

Hi Malcolm,

Welcome to Fedora! It's great to see more Amazon Linux people joining up. :)

There *is* documentation for how to join the "packager" group, but it
is sometimes not very discoverable, depending on the exact search
terms you use ...
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/

Making PRs and proving that you have understood the basics of Fedora /
RPM packaging is a good step towards getting sponsored.
If you want to go the direct route, you can open a ticket here, where
you can apply for sponsorship into the packager group directly:
https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors (don't forget to list your
contributions to Fedora in the ticket, i.e. accepted PRs, non-binding
package reviews, etc.)

And, you are right, not being able to upload sources for new versions
when making a PR is unfortunate. On the other hand, making it possible
to upload arbitrary files to Fedora servers for "untrusted" users is
not a good idea either. So we really don't have a good solution for
that yet ...
As Maxwell has noted in another reply, you can use a partial
workaround for this problem - by updating the "sources" and
".gitignore" files (running "fedpkg new-sources --offline"). Then a
packager group member can just upload the actual file(s) to the cache
and merge the PR - and this then doesn't require any additional
commits or changes to your PR.

Fabio / decathorpe
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Maxwell G via devel]

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 4:28:19 PM CST Inglis, Malcolm via devel wrote:
> I have two outstanding PRs that I think are hanging on uploading new sources 
> to the Lookaside Cache

I have experienced this issue myself and seen it happen to other newcomers 
several times. It nullifies the purpose of CI for a population that it can 
benefit the most. It is possible to run `fedpkg new-sources --offline`, which 
updates the `sources` file and `.gitignore` without actually touching the 
lookaside cache. This saves the package maintainer who merges the PR the 
trouble of creating another commit (they still have to run `fedpkg new-sources` 
to actually upload the tarball to the lookaside cahce), but the whole area 
still creates unnecessary friction. @msrb submitted a PR[1] to Fedora CI to fix 
the issue, but it was never merged.

[1]: https://github.com/fedora-ci/dist-git-build-pipeline/pull/25

-- 
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
PGP Key Fingerprint: f57c76e5a238fe0a628e2ecef79e4e25e8c661f8
PGP Keyserver: hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com
gotmax@e.email

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
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

Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Inglis, Malcolm via devel]

Is someone willing to sponsor me into the `packager` group? I'd appreciate it!

(I was bouncing around the documentation for that, but it seems there's no 
formalized process currently - sorry if I missed something)

I have two outstanding PRs that I think are hanging on uploading new sources to 
the Lookaside Cache: 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nfs-utils/pull-request/10 , 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libesmtp/pull-request/1

I've been, and hope to continue, contributing small fixes for various packages 
that I've noticed while working on AL packaging, and in regular personal usage. 
Over time, I hope to do more.

Cheers

On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 02:11:15 +, Malcolm Inglis wrote:
> Hi Fedora developers,
>
> I’m looking to join your ranks  I’ve made
> https://pagure.io/user/mcinglis/requests?type=filed=all
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/mcinglis/requests?type=filed=all PRs
> already, and had mistakenly skipped this important step of introducing myself.
>
> I’m a senior software engineer on the Amazon Linux team at AWS. I’m working on
> the infrastructure and tooling we use for AL packaging, and on maintenance of
> our user-space packages. I joined the AL team in Q3 2021 with much excitement
> for our direction regarding https://aws.amazon.com/linux/amazon-linux-2022/ 
> and
> Fedora collaboration, and am continuing to support that direction internally.
> I’ve been at Amazon since 2016, having worked in internal developer tools
> organization for the majority of that time, specifically on the massive
> internal build system and on enabling AWS deployments for Amazon’s developers.
> Prior to Amazon, I’ve worked on software for solar power system logging and
> control, and on CRUD web development projects. I studied software engineering
> and mathematics at the University of Queensland for several years.
>
> I’ve ran Fedora (Silverblue) as my daily driver on my laptop since at least
> 2011, though I experiment and dual boot various other distros on other 
> machines
> (big fan of Guix, Alpine and OpenBSD). Fedora’s always been my trusty
> workhorse, though, and I’m ashamed that it’s taken me this long to start
> contributing to the project that I’ve gotten so much value from. Better late
> than never!
>
> I live in Newcastle, WA, USA, and have lived in the Seattle area for the past
> six years. I’m originally from Brisbane, Australia. I have a
> http://minglis.id.au/ that’s been gathering dust, but am hoping to get around
> to that soon. Outside of software which I read and nerd about perhaps too 
> much,
> I love going places and doing things with my family. I enjoy reading science
> fiction and history. I am interested in futurism, space exploration and
> human-scale urban design, and appreciate good coffee and dry wine.
>
> Excited to get to work with you all,
>
> Malcolm.

___
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

Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

[Inglis, Malcolm via devel]

Hi Fedora developers,

I’m looking to join your ranks  I’ve made 
a 
few 
PRs already, and had mistakenly skipped this important step of introducing 
myself.

I’m a senior software engineer on the Amazon Linux team at AWS. I’m working on 
the infrastructure and tooling we use for AL packaging, and on maintenance of 
our user-space packages. I joined the AL team in Q3 2021 with much excitement 
for our direction regarding 
AL22 and Fedora collaboration, 
and am continuing to support that direction internally. I’ve been at Amazon 
since 2016, having worked in internal developer tools organization for the 
majority of that time, specifically on the massive internal build system and on 
enabling AWS deployments for Amazon’s developers. Prior to Amazon, I’ve worked 
on software for solar power system logging and control, and on CRUD web 
development projects. I studied software engineering and mathematics at the 
University of Queensland for several years.

I’ve ran Fedora (Silverblue) as my daily driver on my laptop since at least 
2011, though I experiment and dual boot various other distros on other machines 
(big fan of Guix, Alpine and OpenBSD). Fedora’s always been my trusty 
workhorse, though, and I’m ashamed that it’s taken me this long to start 
contributing to the project that I’ve gotten so much value from. Better late 
than never!

I live in Newcastle, WA, USA, and have lived in the Seattle area for the past 
six years. I’m originally from Brisbane, Australia. I have a 
website that’s been gathering dust, but am hoping to get 
around to that soon. Outside of software which I read and nerd about perhaps 
too much, I love going places and doing things with my family. I enjoy reading 
science fiction and history. I am interested in futurism, space exploration and 
human-scale urban design, and appreciate good coffee and dry wine.

Excited to get to work with you all,
Malcolm.
___
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