Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:06:58 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> Because that is perfectly acceptable. It is not required for a sponsor >> to do a package review for a person who is not a packager. That must be a recent policy change. (It used to be required.) > setting fedora-review+ hides the ticket from the needsponsor tracker > queue. And this is the real issue: the tools have not been updated for the policy change. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
> "MS" == Michael Schwendt writes: MS> setting fedora-review+ hides the ticket from the needsponsor tracker MS> queue. You've deleted that part when quoting me. Why? Because it's not relevant to the point I was making. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:06:58 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > MS> The ticket blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR. No idea why you've approved the > MS> review officially, setting the fedora-review+ flag without being > MS> able to sponsor the new contributor. > > Because that is perfectly acceptable. It is not required for a sponsor > to do a package review for a person who is not a packager. > > This may end up with people with an approved package and no ability to > work on it, but we have a procedure for dealing with that. Jason, setting fedora-review+ hides the ticket from the needsponsor tracker queue. You've deleted that part when quoting me. Why? > It is not required for a sponsor to do a package review for a person > who is not a packager. I've commented on that, but you've not quoted it. What you find "perfectly acceptable" is broken, if the ticket is hidden somewhere from potential sponsors. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
> "MS" == Michael Schwendt writes: MS> The ticket blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR. No idea why you've approved the MS> review officially, setting the fedora-review+ flag without being MS> able to sponsor the new contributor. Because that is perfectly acceptable. It is not required for a sponsor to do a package review for a person who is not a packager. This may end up with people with an approved package and no ability to work on it, but we have a procedure for dealing with that. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Get_Sponsored https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group If the person had their approved package and still didn't get a sponsor even after filing a ticket with the sponsors' ticket tracker then we truly did drop the ball. But I don't think that actually happened in this case. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:09:06PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:40:41 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > these packages (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonludlam/opam/) > > > > about a year ago and never heard back, so... technically I guess I > > > > could proceed with the non-responsive maintainer policy. But is that > > > > the right thing to do? > > > > > > If he wasn't sponsored, then he couldn't have requested the package > > > repository to be created in Fedora git, so technically I think you (or > > > anyone else) could open another review request, have it approved and > > > import the package themselves. > > > > Well, this package has been approved, and it could be useful so I > > don't mind importing it myself. I think the fact the review was done > > 2 years ago shouldn't matter much as the OCaml packaging guidelines > > haven't changed significantly. > > > > Unless anyone objects I'll import it when I get to it in the current > > OCaml rebuild (https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6906). > > The ticket blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR. No idea why you've approved the review > officially, setting the fedora-review+ flag without being able to > sponsor the new contributor. That has removed the ticket from the tracker > list: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html > > You could have become a sponsor a long time ago, if you wanted to > guide new packagers into the project. I'm sponsoring a dozen people already (more than that I think). The reason I didn't sponsor this one is because I'm at the maximum I can reasonably sponsor. Rich. > While any reviewer may post reviews these days and take over a lot of > work that way, that doesn't work if there is no sponsor to complete > the process. And most of the existing sponsors face the typical problem > that they don't feel like sponsoring a complete stranger, who dumps > a single src.rpm into bugzilla without demonstrating interest in becoming > the Fedora maintainer of the package. > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:40:41 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > these packages (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonludlam/opam/) > > > about a year ago and never heard back, so... technically I guess I > > > could proceed with the non-responsive maintainer policy. But is that > > > the right thing to do? > > > > If he wasn't sponsored, then he couldn't have requested the package > > repository to be created in Fedora git, so technically I think you (or > > anyone else) could open another review request, have it approved and > > import the package themselves. > > Well, this package has been approved, and it could be useful so I > don't mind importing it myself. I think the fact the review was done > 2 years ago shouldn't matter much as the OCaml packaging guidelines > haven't changed significantly. > > Unless anyone objects I'll import it when I get to it in the current > OCaml rebuild (https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6906). The ticket blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR. No idea why you've approved the review officially, setting the fedora-review+ flag without being able to sponsor the new contributor. That has removed the ticket from the tracker list: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html You could have become a sponsor a long time ago, if you wanted to guide new packagers into the project. While any reviewer may post reviews these days and take over a lot of work that way, that doesn't work if there is no sponsor to complete the process. And most of the existing sponsors face the typical problem that they don't feel like sponsoring a complete stranger, who dumps a single src.rpm into bugzilla without demonstrating interest in becoming the Fedora maintainer of the package. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:47:32PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > The story with this package (and I think there were some others) is > > that they are required for 'opam' which is a source-based OCaml > > packaging tool (think: Perl and the ‘cpan’ command). Jon Ludlam > > turned up wanting to get opam into Fedora. > > > > Although opam modules "compete" in some sense with the Fedora ocaml-* > > RPMs we create, there are slightly different use cases because opam > > can access development versions of OCaml which we don't tend to > > package, and it also confines itself to the user's home directory, so > > I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about this. However > > Jon did then disappear before we got all the opam dependencies into > > Fedora, so that was that. > > That's actually why I stumbled across it; I just started using OCaml > for a new project a few days ago and was disappointed that opam was > still not in Fedora, so I decided to investigate what would be > required to make it happen. I assumed it would probably be safe to > resubmit the other reviews (which I may do over the next few weeks as > time permits), but I wasn't sure what to do about this one. Thanks for > clarifying! Please CC me on the review bugs and I'll try to review them. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > The story with this package (and I think there were some others) is > that they are required for 'opam' which is a source-based OCaml > packaging tool (think: Perl and the ‘cpan’ command). Jon Ludlam > turned up wanting to get opam into Fedora. > > Although opam modules "compete" in some sense with the Fedora ocaml-* > RPMs we create, there are slightly different use cases because opam > can access development versions of OCaml which we don't tend to > package, and it also confines itself to the user's home directory, so > I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about this. However > Jon did then disappear before we got all the opam dependencies into > Fedora, so that was that. That's actually why I stumbled across it; I just started using OCaml for a new project a few days ago and was disappointed that opam was still not in Fedora, so I decided to investigate what would be required to make it happen. I assumed it would probably be safe to resubmit the other reviews (which I may do over the next few weeks as time permits), but I wasn't sure what to do about this one. Thanks for clarifying! Ben ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 05:56, Ben Rosser wrote: > > Hi, > > > > What is the right thing to do when a package's review is approved, but > > the package never gets imported into the distribution because the > > packager subsequently becomes non-responsive? > > > > Is the non-responsive maintainer policy appropriate, or should the > > review be resubmitted entirely? > > > > I've seen this in a few places and not been entirely sure what to do, > > as this isn't entirely spelled out in our policies. But the specific > > example I'm looking at right now is ocaml-re > > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036), which was > > approved back in 2015 but has not been imported. The story with this package (and I think there were some others) is that they are required for 'opam' which is a source-based OCaml packaging tool (think: Perl and the ‘cpan’ command). Jon Ludlam turned up wanting to get opam into Fedora. Although opam modules "compete" in some sense with the Fedora ocaml-* RPMs we create, there are slightly different use cases because opam can access development versions of OCaml which we don't tend to package, and it also confines itself to the user's home directory, so I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about this. However Jon did then disappear before we got all the opam dependencies into Fedora, so that was that. > > Now the contributor in question (Jon Ludlam) hasn't been sponsored, > > but they've also been generally unresponsive to other review requests > > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771). I also sent Jon > > an email inquiring about the state of his copr repository providing > > these packages (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonludlam/opam/) > > about a year ago and never heard back, so... technically I guess I > > could proceed with the non-responsive maintainer policy. But is that > > the right thing to do? > > If he wasn't sponsored, then he couldn't have requested the package > repository to be created in Fedora git, so technically I think you (or > anyone else) could open another review request, have it approved and > import the package themselves. Well, this package has been approved, and it could be useful so I don't mind importing it myself. I think the fact the review was done 2 years ago shouldn't matter much as the OCaml packaging guidelines haven't changed significantly. Unless anyone objects I'll import it when I get to it in the current OCaml rebuild (https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6906). Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Approved packages that never get imported?
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 05:56, Ben Rosser wrote: > Hi, > > What is the right thing to do when a package's review is approved, but > the package never gets imported into the distribution because the > packager subsequently becomes non-responsive? > > Is the non-responsive maintainer policy appropriate, or should the > review be resubmitted entirely? > > I've seen this in a few places and not been entirely sure what to do, > as this isn't entirely spelled out in our policies. But the specific > example I'm looking at right now is ocaml-re > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036), which was > approved back in 2015 but has not been imported. > > Now the contributor in question (Jon Ludlam) hasn't been sponsored, > but they've also been generally unresponsive to other review requests > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771). I also sent Jon > an email inquiring about the state of his copr repository providing > these packages (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonludlam/opam/) > about a year ago and never heard back, so... technically I guess I > could proceed with the non-responsive maintainer policy. But is that > the right thing to do? If he wasn't sponsored, then he couldn't have requested the package repository to be created in Fedora git, so technically I think you (or anyone else) could open another review request, have it approved and import the package themselves. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
