On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Well, one thing about this is that no-one owns packages anymore. We are a
> community and there are package maintainers in that community.
> Each package has one or more maintainers, but nobody owns it. The only reason
> we
> even have
On 03/02/16 08:44 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
1. Demotivating packagers
I know a number of companies have experimented with "ownership-free"
models of code development, but they are able to offer incentives that
Fedora cannot offer, such as money and kudos offered in front of
coworkers. What mot
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 08:44 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> I know a number of companies have experimented with "ownership-free"
> models of code development, but they are able to offer incentives
> that
> Fedora cannot offer, such as money and kudos offered in front of
> coworkers. What motivates vol
On 02/03/2016 08:44 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon
> wrote:
>> Well, one thing about this is that no-one owns packages anymore. We are a
>> community and there are package maintainers in that community.
>> Each package has one or more maintainers, but
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:04:19 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> When a provenpackager is rebuilding *hundreds* of packages at once,
> and trying to deal with maybe dozens of build failures, sending emails
> to all the package owners and waiting to see if they respond promptly
> is not an efficient way
Michael Schwendt (mschwe...@gmail.com) said:
> > Sometimes a provenpackager will make a bad change, and that's
> > unfortunate, but it happens. Sometimes package owners make bad changes
> > too! :-)
>
> You're taking it too lightly. Somebody who performs version upgrades really
> needs to take ca
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:04:19 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> When a provenpackager is rebuilding *hundreds* of packages at once,
>> and trying to deal with maybe dozens of build failures, sending emails
>> to all the package owners and wa
Jerry James wrote:
> a. Last fall, a provenpackager updated a package for which I am the
> primary point of contact (as well as the original submitter). The
> update was to an upstream alpha release. It was alpha for a reason.
> The release is super buggy. I had not updated to it on purpose. A
On 3 February 2016 at 23:00, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Really, it is not realistic to expect people who need to urgently fix
> something to write up a polite e-mail and wait possibly days for you to
> reply (especially if you then answer that you don't want the change and more
> days are wasted goi
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:26:23 +
Ian Malone wrote:
> If this is a requirement then it rules out a lot of potential
> packagers who are not full time employed to work on OSS. I could not
> sit at my desk and respond to IRCs about Fedora all day.
As with so much in life, IMHO, it's not a black an
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 08:44 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
>
> I think we need to ask ourselves, as a project, what behaviors we want
> to motivate and what behaviors we want to demotivate in our packagers.
> I think we need to take human nature, flawed as it is, into account
> when doing so. I fear t
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 16:04 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > If I send these two provenpackagers a somewhat hostile email, are you
> > going to blame me? I have no problem with most provenpackager
> > changes. In general, they have an obvious purpose and save me the
> > work of making the same
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:09:33 +0800
Ian Kent wrote:
> I agree.
>
> I believe that package ownership has at least a couple of clear
> advantages for obvious reasons and I find it hard to understand how
> people can discount their usefulness.
>
> 1) A point of contact and co-ordination for changes
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:44:32 -0700
Jerry James wrote:
> Several people have said something similar lately, and it worries me.
> I understand that we're trying to combat the hostility some packagers
> show when somebody does something to "their" packages, but I'm
> concerned that we may have swung
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 18:44 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:09:33 +0800
> Ian Kent wrote:
>
> > I agree.
> >
> > I believe that package ownership has at least a couple of clear
> > advantages for obvious reasons and I find it hard to understand how
> > people can discount thei
2016-02-03 17:04 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> On 03/02/16 08:44 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
>
>> 1. Demotivating packagers
>>
>> I know a number of companies have experimented with "ownership-free"
>> models of code development, but they are able to offer incentives that
>> Fedora cannot offer, such
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:35:41 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> But thats not how I look at it least. Instead of being one package who
> says "My packages are great", you can say "My packages are great, and
> other people help me when they can, and I help them out and our
> community is great". It's not t
On 2/4/2016 4:48 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:35:41 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
But thats not how I look at it least. Instead of being one package who
says "My packages are great", you can say "My packages are great, and
other people help me when they can, and I help them o
kendell clark wrote:
> However, this is not always easy. The comments in this thread about
> packagers can also be applied, easily, to the upstream community. Some
> devs are friendly and helpful, while others are do it my way types of
> people. Chromium is a good example of the latter.
As the QtW
19 matches
Mail list logo
