Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-06-01 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* Stefano Zacchiroli | Not that I am against requiring the specific NMU mention in the mail | (especially considering how cheap it as a requirement), but isn't the | package maintainer going to receive some upload notification for the | entrance in DELAYED? No, they are not. | Out of memory

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-06-01 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 07:01:44PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: | Out of memory indeed it is not, but probably it should (of course | only the first time the package enters DELAYED, not each passing day | ...). This requires a fair bit more state than the queue currently has. I'm not sure I

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-31 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that) On 30/05/08 at 17:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:25:34 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer?Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-31 Thread Philip Hands
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 05:17:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 30 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting time, but that's your own problem).  So no reasons

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-31 Thread Richard Hecker
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that) In spite of my intention to not comment any further, I just cannot let this

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-31 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 31/05/08 at 04:25 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that) In spite of my

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-31 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:13:43 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 30/05/08 at 17:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: For the record, I don't think that we should remove the language about informing the maintainer with a mail message; and no, I don't think we quite have a

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 30/05/08 at 09:15 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: When doing an NMU, you must always send a patch with the differences between the current package and your NMU to the BTS. If the bug you are fixing isn't reported yet, you must do that as well. {+After you upload an NMU, you are

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: I miss one thing in these guidelines: they sort of give you the idea you can NMU someone's packages off as long as you go by the book, and that you have the

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:47:45PM -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: I see the same weakness that Henrique listed above. Some people will prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the maintainer. Posting the patch in the BTS does actually send mail to the maintainer. And it's nicely in time,

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit : Yes, communication is good. We have several media for it, the two most important ones being mailing lists and the BTS (IMO). This DEP proposes to use the BTS for communication about NMUs. It was that way already AFAIK,

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Sune Vuorela
On 2008-05-30, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit : Yes, communication is good. We have several media for it, the two most important ones being mailing lists and the BTS (IMO). This DEP proposes to use the BTS for

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Frans Pop
On Friday 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote: the DEP says: - must use BTS, - usage of DELAYED is recommended. I would like to see at least two cases where communication with the maintainer is required *before* uploading (DELAYED or not) by sending an intend to NMU (conform current policy

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Fri May 30 08:48, Sune Vuorela wrote: This means that people can opt out using DELAYED, but must post something in the BTS. I think that the problem is not whether the communication is public in the BTS or private, it is that something the BTS does not imply communication. One can send

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 30/05/08 at 01:44 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: Some people will prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the maintainer. They will claim that this was 'done by the book.' As long as the NMUer sends all the

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 30/05/08 at 17:38 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit : Yes, communication is good. We have several media for it, the two most important ones being mailing lists and the BTS (IMO). This DEP proposes to use the BTS for

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer?Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Bas Wijnen
Hi, On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:40:53AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote: the DEP says: - must use BTS, - usage of DELAYED is recommended. I would like to see at least two cases where communication with the maintainer is required *before* uploading

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer?Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:03:16PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I think that when the mainainer is active, he has to be consulted if a NMU is planned. As a compromise with those who disagree, I propose that he should be given time to react. I'm one of the people who disagrees, but actually I

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer?Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Charles Plessy
Hi again, Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:40:53AM +0200, Frans Pop a écrit : - packages that are clearly actively maintained (can be seen from changelog) - packages that are maintained by active teams There should normally be no need to NMU in such cases and just preparing a good patch for the

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer?Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 30/05/08 at 12:23 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:03:16PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I think that when the mainainer is active, he has to be consulted if a NMU is planned. As a compromise with those who disagree, I propose that he should be given time to react.

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Richard Hecker
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 30/05/08 at 01:44 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: ...snip... You failed to find consensus in the thread I referenced in the previous message. ... which led me to thinking of what we could do to improve the current situation while staying consensual. Because I

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer?Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:57:21PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : The new paragraph is: (yes, wdiff is hard to read) While there are no general rules, it's strongly recommended to give some time to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the DELAYED queue). Here are

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Richard Hecker wrote: In years past, I would route all email through an employment account (I basically lived there anyway and it was the best option to assure timely reception and response ;-). In this environment, it was common to remind people that vacations could last

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:50:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : Please come back in 2008! ;-) You speak as an elder that doesn't want to move forward But no, you prefer to not explain your problem... Please stop this pissing contest... I have read better emails from you, Raphaël. The

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Lars Wirzenius
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 04:34 -0700, Richard Hecker kirjoitti: I just do not see the value when some Johnny-come-lately decides that all the decisions need to be reworked. I'd like to add my voice to the choir of people who think the length of participation in Debian development should not

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Lars Wirzenius
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 22:01 +0900, Charles Plessy kirjoitti: Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:50:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : Please come back in 2008! ;-) You speak as an elder that doesn't want to move forward But no, you prefer to not explain your problem... Please stop this

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote: The difference between using the BTS and asking the maintainer is that dropping a patch in the BTS is not asking the maintainer if the NMU is welcome. In http://wiki.debian.org/NmuDep I see things like Did you give enough time to the maintainer? Being

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:01:05PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I have read better emails from you, Raphaël. Useless personal attack. The difference between using the BTS and asking the maintainer is that dropping a patch in the BTS is not asking the maintainer if the NMU is welcome. When

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer?Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Frans Pop
On Friday 30 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting time, but that's your own problem).  So no reasons are needed for it. I find your argumentation rather weak, but

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Lars Wirzenius
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 09:49 -0700, Steve Langasek kirjoitti: Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be handled with a high priority. I agree with that, of course. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be handled with a high priority. Not that I am against requiring the specific NMU

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:25:34 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: The goal of the DEP is precisely to replace this section 5.11, and change the usual NMU rules. That's why it's submitted as a DEP (to allow broad discussion), not as

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:23:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be handled

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-30 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Now, what we don't agree on: - I think that giving some time should only be very strongly recommended, but not mandatory. - You think that giving some time should be mandatory. I think that our opinions are basically the

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-29 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 25/05/08 at 09:12 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, This is the second call for comments (long overdue) on DEP1. Hi! Please specify the license for the DEP1 text. Is it DFSG free? I suggested earlier [1] that DEP0 should say that all DEP's

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-29 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 27/05/08 at 20:28 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: Quoting Charles: “In order to acknowledge the NMU, it would be necessary to revert the current work, apply the NMU patch, merge the reverted work and resolve the conflicts.” I think I wrote about the 3rd paragraph of 5.11.2, maybe I should

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-29 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Sun, 25 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: 3. NMUs are often received with angry comments from maintainers. [...] This Debian Enhancement Proposal has two goals: 3. We try to encourage a responsible approach for

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-29 Thread Charles Plessy
Hi Lucas, hi all, Le Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:27:49PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : When a package has been NMUed, the maintainer should acknowledge it in the next upload. This makes clear that the changes were accepted in the maintainer's packaging, and that they aren't lost again.

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-29 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote: Are you sure that the BTS can not operate without the changelogs? The BTS needs the changelogs in order to know that the next version is a descendant of the NMU, instead of a descendant of the previous non-NMU, so you either need to include the NMU

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-29 Thread Richard Hecker
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: ...snip... I miss one thing in these guidelines: they sort of give you the idea you can NMU someone's packages off as long as you go by the book, and that you have the RIGHT to do it no matter what.

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-27 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:56:12AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: On 26/05/2008, Charles Plessy wrote: It depends on how important are the VCS and package histories for the maintainer and Debian. In order to acknowledge the NMU, it would be necessary to revert the current work, apply the NMU

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-27 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:00:55PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: Bas Wijnen wrote: === nmudiff improvements Can you please just file a bug against devscripts and leave this out of the DEP? No, because: = the nmudiff patch is not controversial. Why include it in the DEP? * If the DEP

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-27 Thread Cyril Brulebois
On 27/05/2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: The proposal is to use the DELAYED queue as the default way to do an NMU. This means in particular that the code is already finished when the mail about the NMU is sent to the BTS. So there is no reason to allow changes to the patch after this mail; if you

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-27 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 08:01:27PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: On 27/05/2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: The proposal is to use the DELAYED queue as the default way to do an NMU. This means in particular that the code is already finished when the mail about the NMU is sent to the BTS. So there

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-25 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, This is the second call for comments (long overdue) on DEP1. Hi! Please specify the license for the DEP1 text. Is it DFSG free? I suggested earlier [1] that DEP0 should say that all DEP's should be licensed under a DFSG-compatible license. I recall

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-25 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* Bas Wijnen | 5.11.1.2 Using the DELAYED/ queue [...] | The DELAYED queue should not be used to put additional pressure on the | maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are available to | cancel or delay the upload before the delay expires (the maintainer | cannot cancel the upload

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-25 Thread Luk Claes
Bas Wijnen wrote: Hi, Hi === nmudiff improvements Can you please just file a bug against devscripts and leave this out of the DEP? = the nmudiff patch is not controversial. Why include it in the DEP? * If the DEP isn't agreed upon, the patch has no reason to be included in

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-25 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:05:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * Bas Wijnen | 5.11.1.2 Using the DELAYED/ queue [...] | The DELAYED queue should not be used to put additional pressure on the | maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are available to | cancel or delay the

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

2008-05-25 Thread Charles Plessy
Hi Bas, and Lucas, Le Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:50:45AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit : In some cases, the maintainer might allow direct commit to the package's VCS repository. We felt that it was not a good idea to include this in the DEP, because: Actually, this leaves open the question whether