Re: Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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&status=all > https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/mcinglis/requests?type=filed&status=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