Re: failure of policy
People should avoid using the 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 releases unless they really know what they're doing and can fix the problems that may arise. If you want we can... - Backout the changes to 1.1.5 - Put a FORBIDDEN in the makefile so people will know about the issues. Nah. It works for new installs just not for upgrades.
Re: failure of policy
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 10:19:31AM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > > >Well, this looks to have been a combination of two human errors (on > >that > >particular PR), which the code really doesn't know how to deal > >with. But > >after looking at it, I'm not too sure what we could have done > >differently. > > Human error I can understand, but *twice*? Once from the update from > 1.1.5 to 1.2.0 and again update to 1.2.1. > > Whatever it is, now that's what we've got. The slony project will be > rolling out a 1.2.2 release which should be production-worthy within > the next few days. I'll post an update for that. > > People should avoid using the 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 releases unless they > really know what they're doing and can fix the problems that may arise. If you want we can... - Backout the changes to 1.1.5 - Put a FORBIDDEN in the makefile so people will know about the issues. Put any one :-) Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: failure of policy
On Dec 11, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: Well, this looks to have been a combination of two human errors (on that particular PR), which the code really doesn't know how to deal with. But after looking at it, I'm not too sure what we could have done differently. Human error I can understand, but *twice*? Once from the update from 1.1.5 to 1.2.0 and again update to 1.2.1. Whatever it is, now that's what we've got. The slony project will be rolling out a 1.2.2 release which should be production-worthy within the next few days. I'll post an update for that. People should avoid using the 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 releases unless they really know what they're doing and can fix the problems that may arise.
Re: failure of policy
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 05:13:27PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 01:23:54PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote: > > Reading this PR more closely it seems I was not even notified, as > > "Oleg Gawriloff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is described as the maintainer > > and is the one responding to maintainer queries, which he is not. > > What isn't detected well is if someone who isn't the maintainer submits > a PR with the 'maintainer-update' state. Edwin and I need to look at > our respective codebases and figure out what happened in this situation. As I explained to linimon on #bsdports, the original PR didn't get caught by the PR-assignment-software because it couldn't determine the ports name (it said slony1 instead of databases/slony1). So it got in a "tomorrow when I'm awake I'll look at it again" list (this happened in the middle of the night). When I woke up and checked the list, I saw that miwi already grabbed it and ignored it for the rest. Which is what I normally do when people take PRs before they are rescued. For people with access to freefall: tail -f /hub/g/hubgnats/gnats-aa/incoming-PRs/log/foo and you can see which ones are caught and which ones are not caught. If you hear a ^G, then it's one which is not caught. Fix the portname in the synopsis of the original email and bounce the email to gnats-aa at frietbsd dot gro (confused domain to prevent spammers, you can decode it easily if you need), and it might fix itself. Otherwise you will have to wait until I'm awake, or back from dayjob, beach, sun, surf etc. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: failure of policy
> But you're right, this is not the way that it is supposed to work. Please > accept my apologies, and we'll look at the code. Well, this looks to have been a combination of two human errors (on that particular PR), which the code really doesn't know how to deal with. But after looking at it, I'm not too sure what we could have done differently. So please folks, "let's be careful out there" as the old US TV show said, and respect the maintainers' prerogatives. Thanks. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: failure of policy
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 01:23:54PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote: > Reading this PR more closely it seems I was not even notified, as > "Oleg Gawriloff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is described as the maintainer > and is the one responding to maintainer queries, which he is not. What isn't detected well is if someone who isn't the maintainer submits a PR with the 'maintainer-update' state. Edwin and I need to look at our respective codebases and figure out what happened in this situation. But you're right, this is not the way that it is supposed to work. Please accept my apologies, and we'll look at the code. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: failure of policy
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 06:47:53PM +0100, Martin Wilke wrote: > > If the committers are not going to follow the rules, then why should > > anyone bother to be a maintainer? > > I could say this is all my fault a concatenation of stupid mistakes :( > I hope you forgive me for this mistake. Vivek, miwi@ has been spanked quite a bit (both in Email and on IRC) about this mistake. His track record is amazingly clean, so it's important to remember that we're all human and that mistakes do get made. He's feeling pretty bad, so we need not rub his face in it any more. All of your points are completely valid (I'll be surprised if someone argues otherwise), but that said, don't be too hard on him. :-) -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networkinghttp://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: failure of policy
On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Martin Wilke wrote: For this update of 1.2.0 gives a pr show here http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/105575 here is my mistake thats commit is after 7 days not 14 days. This is my mistake right. After this commit, I received a private email with a bugfix. Reading this PR more closely it seems I was not even notified, as "Oleg Gawriloff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is described as the maintainer and is the one responding to maintainer queries, which he is not.
Re: failure of policy
On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Martin Wilke wrote: On 23 Nov 2006, an update was issued to upgrade the 1.1.5 version to 1.2.0 which had known errors in it which cause data loss. Somehow it was applied. A few days later a manual patch was added to work around that. The initial update indicates that whomever submitted the port was either claiming to be or was assumed to be the maintainer. For this update of 1.2.0 gives a pr show here http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/105575 here is my mistake thats commit is after 7 days not 14 days. This is my mistake right. After this commit, I received a private email with a bugfix. I never got any email regarding this one. Also, 1.2.1 still has some issues that need to be fixed; 1.2.2 should be out soon, and that is the one I would have committed to the tree, but now that cat is out of the bag and we have to live with it, I suppose.
Re: failure of policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:23:09 -0500 Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems that the change log on freshports for the databases/slony1 > port shows that someone somewhere is confused as to who's the > maintainer of the port. The Makefile clearly shows it is still me. Sorry, it was definietly my fault. I thought its a maintainer-timeout case. It was my mistake and I hope you forgive me for this mistake. > > On 23 Nov 2006, an update was issued to upgrade the 1.1.5 version to > 1.2.0 which had known errors in it which cause data loss. Somehow > it was applied. A few days later a manual patch was added to work > around that. The initial update indicates that whomever submitted > the port was either claiming to be or was assumed to be the > maintainer. For this update of 1.2.0 gives a pr show here http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/105575 here is my mistake thats commit is after 7 days not 14 days. This is my mistake right. After this commit, I received a private email with a bugfix. Description of the problem: http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/slony1/bugs/bugupdate.php?1591 Then I committed a fix for this problem. Yes without approval from maintainer then i forgot to double check the maintainer mail. > Then on 8 Dec 2006, another update was issued and applied, to 1.2.1. Yes here telling me the self People with a patch of 1.2.1, i check this on my tinderbox this build fine and committed this. Yes I looked not yet on more maintainer mail. > > Today I saw in my email a patch to correct some error in the pkg- > plist file, which is how I noticed that someone had updated the > slony1 port. > > This is not how it is supposed to work. I should have gotten these > notices on *every* PR submitted with a patch against this port. > There is no reason that 1.2.0 should have *ever* hit the ports tree > as it was broken out of the gate. This is one of the reason ports > have maintainers: to ensure broken things don't get thrown into the > collection. > > If the committers are not going to follow the rules, then why should > anyone bother to be a maintainer? I could say this is all my fault a concatenation of stupid mistakes :( I hope you forgive me for this mistake. - - Martin - -- Martin Wilke| irc.unixfreunde.de #bsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer | Power to Serve -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFfZnJPrCIFpjWZiwRAk+6AJ9yu1Cb2CpO9tBNkEsI+5EbC+kBQACfUY/Y jb2MtcMsi3jM89HoKbm63bM= =G8dt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
