This is just a collection of random thougths on some of the ideas you
presented in this thread.
Nobody is putting burden on anyone other then the maintainers themselves.
Either they do it directly to themselves ... or it's being
done by other sloppy/non responsive/absent maintainers
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:18:11 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
I didn't imply that there should be less documentation or guidelines,
only that it's more than a person can grok at one time.
That's too vague for me to understand it.
Some topics are covered by entire books, for example even several
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:49:00 +0100, I wrote:
[...]
some level of perseverance, some sort of prove that they are willing to
[...]
s/prove/proof/
--
Not an attempt at fixing all embarrassing typos, however. ;)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
up process seems to be seriously broken...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:03:43 -0800
Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no
has made a serious FESCo
Dne 22.11.2011 18:55, Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
VO == Vít Ondruchvondr...@redhat.com writes:
VO It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle,
VO to publish a list of packages which were not touched by it
VO maintainer in previous release.
I certainly hope you
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
documentation/guidelines there are.
Hey, :) you know what? Troublesome newbies would like even more
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:18:11AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
documentation/guidelines there are.
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 08:18 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
documentation/guidelines there are.
Hey, :)
-
From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:36:39 AM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:03:43 -0800
Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
This has come up nearly every
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:09:36 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
Am 21.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
+1
nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced
from
release to relase while th eonly
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:33 +0100, MT (Miloslav) wrote:
Nothing is in place to detect inactive maintainers automatically.
We don't really need absolute automation - if a package is not
actively maintained but nobody notices, does it really matter?[1]
Yes. Users notice, but they report
On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended as such.
I would recommend you stop this thread at
Excerpts from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson's message of Tue Nov 22 00:28:32 +0100
2011:
On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained
On 11/22/2011 08:51 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Can I be added to the list of maintainers that need help very badly from the
beginning?
If such an list existed I dont see why that should be a problem.
I maintain a number of packages that are very low in the Java stack and would
force
On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended as such.
Comments inline.
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:36:53 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 08:51 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:57:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/22/2011 04
On 11/22/2011 10:18 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Excerpts from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson's message of Tue Nov 22 00:28:32 +0100
2011:
On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the
On 11/22/2011 12:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
You don't improve distribution, when you start bullying contributors. Bunch
of people were already annoyed with your proposal.
Please provide explanation further how I was bullying contributors.
Thanks
JBG
--
devel mailing list
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:57:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/22/2011 04
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:42:37 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 12:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
You don't
On 11/22/2011 12:35 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Comments inline.
- Original Message -
snip
We seem to disagree here. I value every maintainer even one that steps in
once in a year. And yes I value him more than someone that would open 10
bugreports without instructions how to
On 11/22/2011 12:49 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Hmm, haven't this started with if you're not ready to reply to every
bugreport we will ban you because we don't want your contribution?
If you are referring to
Well if people want more controversial proposal of sign of live that's
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:34:50 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 12:49 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Hmm, haven't
On 11/22/2011 01:48 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
The problem here is that in my eyes there are no inactive contributors and
there shouldn't be anything preventing people from contributing (even if it's
one update per year).
While I agree that projects that
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:57:03 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 01:48 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:32:56PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
stepped up and they
Dne 22.11.2011 17:44, Chris Adams napsal(a):
Once upon a time, Vít Ondruchvondr...@redhat.com said:
It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
previous release. For all these packages, new
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:38:23 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the only way to achieve something like this for maintainership
we need to drop the ownership module so either nobody owns a
package/component in the project or relevant SIG owns the package.
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
still come in by packaging a new package. I think we really want most of
the new packagers coming in as
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:32:56 +0100, VO (Vít) wrote:
I remember
at leas one example from history when I was not able to reach the
maintainer and at the end he was quite angry that I was so daring to
call him unresponsive, even though I wanted just to help him. Also,
there are other
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:05:37AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
still come in by packaging a new package.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
still come in by packaging a new package. I think we really
VO == Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com writes:
VO It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle,
VO to publish a list of packages which were not touched by it
VO maintainer in previous release.
I certainly hope you realize that there are very many packages in the
On 22/11/11 17:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list
could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential
sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for
months without doing any package review
TH == Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu writes:
TH As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
TH if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
TH sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
TH more like it's just one thing that may
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of
On 11/22/2011 05:27 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
Does that governing body only exist to say yay or nay to others proposals?
FESCo exists
On 11/22/2011 11:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
And still there have been self-nominations before.
You could look up FESCo tickets of past nominations.
I never thought about that, perhaps it should be added to the
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:57:24AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
Because demanding that other people do work generally doesn't result in
the
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:16:30 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hum not so sure that will effectively work at least the cleanup
process needs have take place before we start the next development
cycle atleast no later then GA so basically the performance review
of the
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no
has made a
TH == Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu writes:
TH As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
TH if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
TH sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
TH more like it's just one thing that may
I'd like to add/note:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Become_a_co-maintainer
is another way to become a packager.
Simply work on/with an existing maintainer on their package (submit bug
reports, help test, submit patches, etc) and then ask them if
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/2011 11:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
And still there have been self-nominations before.
You could look up FESCo tickets of past
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree
Also along these lines...
Perhaps this has been discussed before I'm not aware of it but do we
really need to hold up a package because the submitter needs a
sponsor?
What I mean by that is, if I'm not misunderstanding the process, that
a person who submits their first package must be sponsored
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:59:58 +, TH (Tom) wrote:
Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list
could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential
sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for
months without doing any
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:26:27 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
Also along these lines...
Perhaps this has been discussed before I'm not aware of it but do we
really need to hold up a package because the submitter needs a
sponsor?
What I mean by that is, if I'm not misunderstanding the process,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:25:35 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
[...]
question: How does a sponsor find future sponsors? Just because I
complete an informal or formal review doesn't mean that a sponsor sees
it, unless there's some system that provides visibility that I'm
unaware of.
Well, one way
On 11/22/2011 06:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
That problem can be solved technically as in be made transparent to
reports and maintainers ( reporters using our bugzilla but
maintainers using their relevant upstream one )
Not sure how off hand. ;(
The rough idea I had in my head can be
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:25:35 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
[...]
question: How does a sponsor find future sponsors? Just because I
complete an informal or formal review doesn't mean that a sponsor sees
it, unless
RS == Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com writes:
RS How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
RS informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own
RS horn' so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a good prospect as
RS a packager.
Well, the documentation
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote:
RS == Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com writes:
RS How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
RS informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own
RS horn' so to speak. That
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:30:47 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own horn'
so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a good prospect as a
packager.
Similar answer as before.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote:
RS == Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com writes:
RS Yes. If the informal review is for an existing packager then,
RS there's no guarantee that a sponsor will even see that informal
RS review because there's no
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:24:46 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
But I remember reports that contained similar information. Therefore
some kind of script must have existed. Maybe it was related to some
FTBFS reports where someone else reported that his script would have
reported
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
documentation/guidelines there are.
Hey, :) you know what? Troublesome newbies would like even more
documentation, guidelines and policy documents. Also a book about koji,
bodhi, package
Given that I'm migrating bunch of legacy init script to native systemd
ones and I have come many packages that seem that maintainer(s) have
deserted them but for some bizarre reason we still continue to package
and keep rolling them between release and now I came across bug 738442
which
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:56:02 +, JBG (Jóhann) wrote:
Instead of everybody that are doing needed work in the distribution
having to run around after maintainers trying to find out if they are
still active or not and initiate the unresponsive maintainer policy,
cant we revert the process
On 11/21/2011 09:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Unconvincing. To reassure ownership periodicially won't be sufficient.
It would be just another button to click (like FAS password or cert
renewal) and would not guarantee that the packages would be maintained
properly and that tickets would be
Am 21.11.2011 22:53, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 11/21/2011 09:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Unconvincing. To reassure ownership periodicially won't be sufficient.
It would be just another button to click (like FAS password or cert
renewal) and would not guarantee that the packages
On Nov 21, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 09:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Unconvincing. To reassure ownership periodicially won't be sufficient.
It would be just another button to click (like FAS password or cert
renewal) and would not guarantee that the
On 11/21/2011 10:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody can seem
to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no has made a
serious FESCo proposal for a contrived sign of life.
I don't think anybody disagrees (well maybe
On 11/21/2011 09:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
+1
nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced from
release to relase while th eonly response is from bugzapper about EOL of the
release
That's one symptom of the underlying problem and with my QA hat on I can
tell
JBG == Jóhann B Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com writes:
JBG How does FPC handle packagers that violate the packaging
JBG guidelines?
FPC is not tasked with enforcing the packaging guidelines.
- J
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/21/2011 10:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
JBG == Jóhann B Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com writes:
JBG How does FPC handle packagers that violate the packaging
JBG guidelines?
FPC is not tasked with enforcing the packaging guidelines.
So who's ultimately responsible for making sure
On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
So who's ultimately responsible for making sure that packagers are
following the current guidelines set by FPC releng?
the community. You see, the problem with a volunteer community is that
enforcement basically boils down to A)
On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
So if you are serious about wanting this fixed, draft a proposal, figure out
who's going to do the coding work, and bring it to FESCo.
I would think this work directly falls under releng jurisdiction ( given
that releng is
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:03:43 -0800
Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no
has made a serious FESCo proposal for a contrived sign of life.
I don't
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 22:22:56 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Well comes logically to me that at least the maintainer would be
stripped of those packages he is ignoring.
That doesn't help. It is reasonable to orphan a package that isn't being
adequately
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no
has made a serious FESCo proposal for a contrived sign of life.
I remember that there has been
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
+1
nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced from
release to relase while th eonly response is from bugzapper about EOL of the
release
Well, that's not the same problem as this thread is about.
There a
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing is in place to detect inactive maintainers automatically.
We don't really need absolute automation - if a package is not
actively maintained but nobody notices, does it really matter?[1]
The case that has
Am 21.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
+1
nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced from
release to relase while th eonly response is from bugzapper about EOL of the
release
Well, that's not
On 11/21/2011 10:36 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:03:43 -0800
Jesse Keatingjkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no
has made a serious FESCo
On 11/21/2011 11:00 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
[1] It does matter because there is a risk of security vulnerabilities
being unaddressed - but, hopefully, at least for the frequently used
packages somebody would notice.
This in itself should be valid enough point to have proper clean up
process
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended as such.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended as such.
BTW does anyone have any insight on how
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Instead of everybody that are doing needed work in the distribution
having to run around after maintainers trying to find out if they are
still active or not and initiate the unresponsive maintainer policy,
cant we revert the process and have maintainer(s) having
80 matches
Mail list logo
