Re: Patch and policy inquiry
List: openbsd-ports<https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports=1=2> Subject: Re: Patch and policy inquiry<https://marc.info/?t=16076424401=1=2> From: "Theo de Raadt" <https://marc.info/?a=14680944822=1=2> Date: 2020-12-11 23:59:58<https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports=1=2=202012> Message-ID: 51112.1607731198 () cvs ! openbsd ! org<https://marc.info/?i=51112.1607731198%20()%20cvs%20!%20openbsd%20!%20org> [Download RAW message<https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports=160773125931229=mbox> or body<https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports=160773125931229=raw>] Everyone can see you have an agenda. Please stop being so rude. plz spare the hypocrisy. original dev quote is worse than ask question. i seen worse on list too with no comment, from you too. it make the point about rules right
Re: Patch and policy inquiry
As I said, "There are some problems with them, do not take them as being 100% correct."
Re: Patch and policy inquiry
Everyone can see you have an agenda. Please stop being so rude. max porter wrote: > If it doesn't represent policy then change the name of the section otherwise > it just seems to read as "rules for thee and not for me". This implication > also is reinforced by the behavior of developers and comments in this thread. > > I did slightly misspeak about adoption of OpenBSD though which I admit to, > but you also didn't read the document. And I quote: > > "The goal is to get all ported applications to support OpenBSD. To achieve > this goal, feed patches to support running on OpenBSD back to the application > maintainer. (If you are not the port maintainer, check with them first. There > may be a reason why they have deliberately not done this)." > > That may not be adoption of the OS but support for it in applications. > "Deliberately not done this" should not include they just don't want to, or > feel like not following what is supposedly a policy. > > From: Stuart Henderson > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:40 AM > To: max porter > Cc: Landry Breuil ; ports@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: Patch and policy inquiry > > On 2020/12/11 12:34, max porter wrote: > > Thanks for the info and your comment is fair. > > > > However I would argue the maintainer started it with the tone of his > > comment, given he may not have known about the noted policy which one > > could say was source of truth and the thing "telling him what to do". > > > > I cannot see that attitude helping to foster adoption of OpenBSD as > > developers may not use OpenBSD, and would be unaware of changes needed > > to support it unless packagers notify/assist them rather than keeping > > patches to themselves. > > OpenBSD is not trying to foster adoption. If it's useful to you then > great. If not then that's also great, there are plenty of different OS > to use in different circumstances. > > > To be clear are you implying the policy only applies to some and not > > all who help with OpenBSD? > > The ports faq sections are an attempt to write-up how things are > usually done to get new contributors up to speed without asking too > many questions. > > They do not represent policy. There are some problems with them, > do not take them as being 100% correct. > > > I will likely not be providing further info on the PR as I don't > > directly use OpenBSD so have no way to properly validate the > > changes, hence the mail asking for additional assistance and the > > note for him in it. > > It doesn't really make sense to open a PR for something which you are > not involved in and have no way of testing, that is just frustrating > for everyone involved. >
Re: Patch and policy inquiry
If it doesn't represent policy then change the name of the section otherwise it just seems to read as "rules for thee and not for me". This implication also is reinforced by the behavior of developers and comments in this thread. I did slightly misspeak about adoption of OpenBSD though which I admit to, but you also didn't read the document. And I quote: "The goal is to get all ported applications to support OpenBSD. To achieve this goal, feed patches to support running on OpenBSD back to the application maintainer. (If you are not the port maintainer, check with them first. There may be a reason why they have deliberately not done this)." That may not be adoption of the OS but support for it in applications. "Deliberately not done this" should not include they just don't want to, or feel like not following what is supposedly a policy. From: Stuart Henderson Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:40 AM To: max porter Cc: Landry Breuil ; ports@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Patch and policy inquiry On 2020/12/11 12:34, max porter wrote: > Thanks for the info and your comment is fair. > > However I would argue the maintainer started it with the tone of his > comment, given he may not have known about the noted policy which one > could say was source of truth and the thing "telling him what to do". > > I cannot see that attitude helping to foster adoption of OpenBSD as > developers may not use OpenBSD, and would be unaware of changes needed > to support it unless packagers notify/assist them rather than keeping > patches to themselves. OpenBSD is not trying to foster adoption. If it's useful to you then great. If not then that's also great, there are plenty of different OS to use in different circumstances. > To be clear are you implying the policy only applies to some and not > all who help with OpenBSD? The ports faq sections are an attempt to write-up how things are usually done to get new contributors up to speed without asking too many questions. They do not represent policy. There are some problems with them, do not take them as being 100% correct. > I will likely not be providing further info on the PR as I don't > directly use OpenBSD so have no way to properly validate the > changes, hence the mail asking for additional assistance and the > note for him in it. It doesn't really make sense to open a PR for something which you are not involved in and have no way of testing, that is just frustrating for everyone involved.
Re: Patch and policy inquiry
On 2020/12/11 12:34, max porter wrote: > Thanks for the info and your comment is fair. > > However I would argue the maintainer started it with the tone of his > comment, given he may not have known about the noted policy which one > could say was source of truth and the thing "telling him what to do". > > I cannot see that attitude helping to foster adoption of OpenBSD as > developers may not use OpenBSD, and would be unaware of changes needed > to support it unless packagers notify/assist them rather than keeping > patches to themselves. OpenBSD is not trying to foster adoption. If it's useful to you then great. If not then that's also great, there are plenty of different OS to use in different circumstances. > To be clear are you implying the policy only applies to some and not > all who help with OpenBSD? The ports faq sections are an attempt to write-up how things are usually done to get new contributors up to speed without asking too many questions. They do not represent policy. There are some problems with them, do not take them as being 100% correct. > I will likely not be providing further info on the PR as I don't > directly use OpenBSD so have no way to properly validate the > changes, hence the mail asking for additional assistance and the > note for him in it. It doesn't really make sense to open a PR for something which you are not involved in and have no way of testing, that is just frustrating for everyone involved.
Re: Patch and policy inquiry
Thanks for the info and your comment is fair. However I would argue the maintainer started it with the tone of his comment, given he may not have known about the noted policy which one could say was source of truth and the thing "telling him what to do". I cannot see that attitude helping to foster adoption of OpenBSD as developers may not use OpenBSD, and would be unaware of changes needed to support it unless packagers notify/assist them rather than keeping patches to themselves. To be clear are you implying the policy only applies to some and not all who help with OpenBSD? I will likely not be providing further info on the PR as I don't directly use OpenBSD so have no way to properly validate the changes, hence the mail asking for additional assistance and the note for him in it. From: Landry Breuil Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 2:10 AM To: max porter Cc: ports@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Patch and policy inquiry On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:07:57AM +, max porter wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for resending this, apparently the list didn't like my primary email > address and the message got encoded. Resending to max it easier for everyone. > > I don't use OpenBSD but a friend asked for help since they do. They saw a > patch for Ansible which will help them manage their systems from other OS, > but it wasn't in Ansible itself. They told me they asked the maintainer (who > has an openbsd.org email) about it and got the following quote after some > discussion (if there is somewhere they should forward the original I can pass > it along): > > "If somebody starts telling me that I must do something because they just > decided so, I don't care if is it bad education, stupidity or mental illness. > " > > But it looks like the policy here > https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html#PortsPolicy suggests this patch > should have been shared, but was not. I went ahead and opened a PR > (https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/72937) and pinged the maintainer for > their feedback in case I missed something. the policy might need to be reworded. In all case, you must remember that people working on openbsd mostly do it on their own free time, and because it's fun, or technically interesting, everyone has its own reasons. generally, it's nice to send upstream patches which make sense to be upstreamed (*not* the ones which are openbsd-specific, changing paths, defaults, etc..) - in the case of this rcctl ansible patch, yes it makes sense. the 'good way of doing this' is first contacting the maintainer, asking him (nicely) if he plans to upstream patch, if there's a particular reason some patches arent upstreamed (for reasons maybe only he knows, not everyone adds notes to patches), and then offer your help for upstreaming, as you more or less did. you open a PR upstream, which is fine. but in the PR you tell upstream developers to contact the openbsd developer who worked on this patch for more questions, who already told your friend he's nobody to tell him what he has to do. at that point you started it, so *YOU* need to be in charge of the upstreaming, replying to questions from upstream etc. redirecting upstream developers to the maintainer, potentially putting more work on him, is definitely not nice. Landry
Re: Patch and policy inquiry
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:07:57AM +, max porter wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for resending this, apparently the list didn't like my primary email > address and the message got encoded. Resending to max it easier for everyone. > > I don't use OpenBSD but a friend asked for help since they do. They saw a > patch for Ansible which will help them manage their systems from other OS, > but it wasn't in Ansible itself. They told me they asked the maintainer (who > has an openbsd.org email) about it and got the following quote after some > discussion (if there is somewhere they should forward the original I can pass > it along): > > "If somebody starts telling me that I must do something because they just > decided so, I don't care if is it bad education, stupidity or mental illness. > " > > But it looks like the policy here > https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html#PortsPolicy suggests this patch > should have been shared, but was not. I went ahead and opened a PR > (https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/72937) and pinged the maintainer for > their feedback in case I missed something. the policy might need to be reworded. In all case, you must remember that people working on openbsd mostly do it on their own free time, and because it's fun, or technically interesting, everyone has its own reasons. generally, it's nice to send upstream patches which make sense to be upstreamed (*not* the ones which are openbsd-specific, changing paths, defaults, etc..) - in the case of this rcctl ansible patch, yes it makes sense. the 'good way of doing this' is first contacting the maintainer, asking him (nicely) if he plans to upstream patch, if there's a particular reason some patches arent upstreamed (for reasons maybe only he knows, not everyone adds notes to patches), and then offer your help for upstreaming, as you more or less did. you open a PR upstream, which is fine. but in the PR you tell upstream developers to contact the openbsd developer who worked on this patch for more questions, who already told your friend he's nobody to tell him what he has to do. at that point you started it, so *YOU* need to be in charge of the upstreaming, replying to questions from upstream etc. redirecting upstream developers to the maintainer, potentially putting more work on him, is definitely not nice. Landry
Patch and policy inquiry
Hi, I don't use OpenBSD but a friend asked for help since they do. They saw a patch for Ansible which will help them manage their systems from other OS, but it wasn't in Ansible itself. They told me they asked the maintainer (who has an openbsd.org email) about it and got the following quote after some discussion (if there is somewhere they should forward the original I can pass it along): "If somebody starts telling me that I must do something because they just decided so, I don't care if is it bad education, stupidity or mental illness. " But it looks like the policy here https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html#PortsPolicy suggests this patch should have been shared, but was not. I went ahead and opened a PR (https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/72937) and pinged the maintainer for their feedback in case I missed something. While doing my patch I found https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/65112 from the past which seems to be another patch not submitted but which was actually accepted. Since I am not an OpenBSD user I was curious if that policy item is still valid, or if it is pending amendment for more specific criteria for when patches should be shared with projects? When patches are shared, or not, where does this end up getting documented? For instance, in Fedora there is a comment in the spec file explaining why a patch is needed, where it was submitted, and why it was not included if applicable. Ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_patch_guidelines Thanks.
Re: Patch and policy inquiry
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:07:57AM +, max porter wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for resending this, apparently the list didn't like my primary email > address and the message got encoded. Resending to max it easier for everyone. > > I don't use OpenBSD but a friend asked for help since they do. They saw a > patch for Ansible which will help them manage their systems from other OS, > but it wasn't in Ansible itself. They told me they asked the maintainer (who > has an openbsd.org email) about it and got the following quote after some > discussion (if there is somewhere they should forward the original I can pass > it along): > > "If somebody starts telling me that I must do something because they just > decided so, I don't care if is it bad education, stupidity or mental illness. > " > This is pretty much a basic tenet of the OpenBSD community. Each of us does what we do only because we choose to do it for our own purposes. At first glance, this may seem harsh. Yet OpenBSD has a type of group of individuals who are furthering their own desires, for their own sake. Hmm. Terrible! Yet it has produced perhaps the most secure OS, extremely clean code which is constantly examined for any possible defect and is a complete unitary system, kernel, userland, and ports together at any one moment. I'm working on bringing in LedgerSMB. Not because anyone asked me to, but because I have chosen to. I have received help (thank you!), but this is, at the moment, my project. I like doing this. At some point I will finish and be happy. In a sense, this is a philosophy different than many other projects. Each of us, as individuals, chooses what to do or not. Doing work for the benefit of others is not a problem at all, but not required. I really like this. To me, this is proper individual freedom, which does indeed produce something of great value without demanding anything in return. As someone inside the LedgerSMB project told me, "it's OK if my work takes a long time, since we aren't getting paid for it anyway." One problem is that everything done takes time. Sometimes weeks or years. Patches, ports, questions, etcetera pretty much require someone else to respond in some way. As the mailing lists roll along, things often get overlooked and need to be resent with a ping. Not everything gets done. > But it looks like the policy here > https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html#PortsPolicy suggests this patch > should have been shared, but was not. I went ahead and opened a PR > (https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/72937) and pinged the maintainer for > their feedback in case I missed something. > > While doing my patch I found https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/65112 > from the past which seems to be another patch not submitted but which was > actually accepted. > > Since I am not an OpenBSD user I was curious if that policy item is still > valid, or if it is pending amendment for more specific criteria for when > patches should be shared with projects? When patches are shared, or not, > where does this end up getting documented? > > For instance, in Fedora there is a comment in the spec file explaining why a > patch is needed, where it was submitted, and why it was not included if > applicable. Ref: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_patch_guidelines OpenBSD has a different system for accepting outside software that works pretty well. Things are tested and placed in just the right spots. That extra work especially pays off when updates are needed, since the process is very strict. OpenBSD frequently needs special patches to deal with the differences between other OS's. Commits can be seen at ports-chan...@openbsd.org (don't send mail there, please) Questions and discussion happen at ports@openbsd.org OpenBSD strongly expects users and contributors to work hard (in a good way) to learn from the source code and to read the excellent man pages. The man pages are deliberately kept complete but short. Please, feel free to ask any questions. Also, if this email sounds cranky, it's not meant to be. And, if you want to, put OpenBSD on a flash drive and give it a run. You might want to use it along side with your regular OS. Years ago, I tried a variety of Linux distributions, but I wasn't really happy with any of them. I saw a mention of OpenBSD and that was that! Chris Bennett
Patch and policy inquiry
Hi, Sorry for resending this, apparently the list didn't like my primary email address and the message got encoded. Resending to max it easier for everyone. I don't use OpenBSD but a friend asked for help since they do. They saw a patch for Ansible which will help them manage their systems from other OS, but it wasn't in Ansible itself. They told me they asked the maintainer (who has an openbsd.org email) about it and got the following quote after some discussion (if there is somewhere they should forward the original I can pass it along): "If somebody starts telling me that I must do something because they just decided so, I don't care if is it bad education, stupidity or mental illness. " But it looks like the policy here https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html#PortsPolicy suggests this patch should have been shared, but was not. I went ahead and opened a PR (https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/72937) and pinged the maintainer for their feedback in case I missed something. While doing my patch I found https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/65112 from the past which seems to be another patch not submitted but which was actually accepted. Since I am not an OpenBSD user I was curious if that policy item is still valid, or if it is pending amendment for more specific criteria for when patches should be shared with projects? When patches are shared, or not, where does this end up getting documented? For instance, in Fedora there is a comment in the spec file explaining why a patch is needed, where it was submitted, and why it was not included if applicable. Ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_patch_guidelines Thanks.
