-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/13/10 2:43 AM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:35:32AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>
>> The "system" is fairly open with regard to just about everything except
>> attitude. Currently it's mostly attitude that prevents "openness
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:35:32AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> The "system" is fairly open with regard to just about everything except
> attitude. Currently it's mostly attitude that prevents "openness".
The ACL system restrict changes to other people packages to provenpackagers.
And then th
Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> There _is_ a middle ground between bleeding edge and extremely stable.
>
> A Fedora release should have a locked version of key shared packages,
> such as Python, Rails, etc., should be kept at a specific version (with
> upgrades only for bug fixes).
Well, I don't know h
Nils Philippsen wrote:
> AIUI, a SIG are more people than those who actually work on related
> packages as maintainers, or are competent and responsible enough to not
> break things in the process of updating packages with which they're not
> familiar (otherwise they'd be (co-)maintainers, wouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/6/10 2:16 AM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Maybe Fedora should do a transition to a more open system, since the dedicated
> packager is less present nowadays. But it should be done carefully, in order
> not to piss off the remaining dedicated packagers,
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:28:31PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > I thought rawhide should be more useful and less broken if i recall
> > the latest threads right. Anyways, exactly that's why i do *not* want
> > anybody can do anything with any package. That's just insane, sorry.
>
> This is Fedor
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:30:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> This generally works out pretty well, and helps out with the problem of
> having quite a small set of maintainers for an extremely large set of
> packages. I was often in the situation where I happened to notice a
> small issue w
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 13:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> In practice, packages still have maintainers who are recognized for
> practical reasons and generally you would check with the listed
> maintainer of a package before making a change to it. (But, hey, if they
> don't reply in a day or two
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 03:18 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd also
> make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a problem. You see a
> problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the package has an active maintainer
> or not
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 03:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > We need groups, with "grouped privileges/acls" etc. It's essentially
> > what e.g. the "perl-sig" originally was meant to be.
>
> Yes, group ACLs are definitely needed, but in addition to that technical
> feature,
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> How would you find out whether that's the case? - You would need to talk
> to the package maintainer(s). Having arbitrary provenpackagers perform
> random upgrades won't do it.
We need to get packagers to document the reason why they're not upgrading
some package in a st
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> I'm sorry, i can't agree with you here. Being more aggressive, putting
>> pressure on whatever just to have the latest versions of all the
>> software around in rawhide, sounds to me like we would go and break
>> rawhid
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:33 +0200, Kevin wrote:
> Rawhide should always have the latest upstream release unless there's a
> strong reason why a particular release needs to be skipped (i.e. it's
> broken, it contains illegal stuff or something like that).
How would you find out whether that's the
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Ridiculous. :( The way you've phrased it doesn't meet the "be excellent"
> guidelines IMO. There is nothing "completely unacceptable" or "against
> Fedora's objectives" with skipping certain upstream releases. And I hope
> that nobody will become "more aggressive" or try t
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> I'm sorry, i can't agree with you here. Being more aggressive, putting
> pressure on whatever just to have the latest versions of all the
> software around in rawhide, sounds to me like we would go and break
> rawhide a lot.
> I thought rawhide should be more useful and less
On 07/03/2010 04:05 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> Most of the packages listed here are not up to date:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=exact&query_format=advanced&bug_status=ASSIGNED&email1=upstream-release-monitoring%40fedoraproject.org&product=Fedora
Yeah but this
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 18:08:03 +0800, Chen wrote:
> I'm fully agree with you, but there are some maintainers who don't
> respond on bugzilla at all or for a very long time. They may be still
> active on koji, but they don't respond even when you attach a
> patch/spec to solve known issues or request
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:43:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/02/2010 07:37 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > Ok, this policy was for the other case, a case when the maintainer
> > does not respond. I am not saying that it happens a lot, but it
> > happened in the past, and the syslog-ng case
2010/7/3 Michael Schwendt :
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:40:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
>
>>
>> It is part of the Fedora Objectives:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives
>> to "be on the leading edge of free and open source technology". Given that,
>> it is completely unacceptable to not upgrade sof
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:40:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > You have to accept the maintainers decision to not update it yet? What
> > do you think will happen if everyone builds the wishes he has and
> > breaks a lot of stuff with it? Anarchy? We have processes for that in
> > Fe
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> You have to accept the maintainers decision to not update it yet? What
>> do you think will happen if everyone builds the wishes he has and
>> breaks a lot of stuff with it? Anarchy? We have processes for that in
>> Fed
On 07/03/2010 03:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
>> In the old days of RHL and beehive, I think we had it about right...
>> with the obvious exception that it was Red Hat only, but the attitude to
>> packaging was right, IMHO. There _was_ someone who knew most about a
>> package
David Woodhouse wrote:
> In the old days of RHL and beehive, I think we had it about right...
> with the obvious exception that it was Red Hat only, but the attitude to
> packaging was right, IMHO. There _was_ someone who knew most about a
> package and was expected to deal with it most of the time
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> You have to accept the maintainers decision to not update it yet? What
> do you think will happen if everyone builds the wishes he has and
> breaks a lot of stuff with it? Anarchy? We have processes for that in
> Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Maintaine
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> We need groups, with "grouped privileges/acls" etc. It's essentially
> what e.g. the "perl-sig" originally was meant to be.
Yes, group ACLs are definitely needed, but in addition to that technical
feature, we also need to make sure that the SIG actually gets commit access
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:44:29 -0400
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it's counterproductive to downgrade that
>> responsibility, or even worse pretend that it doesn't matter --- and
>> Kevin's lead statement in this thread is damn close to pretending
>> that. Sorry Kevin, we are
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:28:09PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> I don't think it really matters what we call it, I just think that
> package maintainers are starting to get a sense of entitlement and I
> feel that's counter productive to the open environment we're used to
> and are trying to help co
On 07/02/2010 07:37 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Ok, this policy was for the other case, a case when the maintainer
> does not respond. I am not saying that it happens a lot, but it
> happened in the past, and the syslog-ng case exposed in the thread is
> another recent case. Maybe a policy is not n
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:29:33PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > You mean that you didn't only send a patch but you did commit
> > version bumps without prior communication with the maintainer
> > or with a maintainer not responding to your offer to do a
> > version bump?
>
> I offered to d
On 07/02/2010 07:27 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:15:54PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> I had forgotten about this but since becoming provenpackager I have
>> helped out in simple rebuilds or even version bumps on occasions and
>> have gotten positive feedback.
> You mea
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:15:54PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> I had forgotten about this but since becoming provenpackager I have
> helped out in simple rebuilds or even version bumps on occasions and
> have gotten positive feedback.
You mean that you didn't only send a patch but you did c
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:36:34PM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
>
> I think escalating to FESCo is only suitable for changes which are
> controversial between different people, we should have another policy
> to treat those non-responsive issues, maintainers should respond on
> bugzilla report in time.
Hello,
2010-07-02 14:48 keltezéssel, Thomas Janssen írta:
> +1
>> I'd like to get syslog-ng updated to the latest version in Rawhide (I
>> work part time for the upstream developer and I'm also an occasional
>> Fedora user). I contacted the package owner, no response. Created a
>> bugreport to get
On 07/02/2010 06:46 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
> In the past we proposed a policy for that kind of issues with Rahul,
> but it was never approved (nor really considered).
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenance
I had forgotten about this but since becoming provenpac
2010/7/2 Patrice Dumas :
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:23:43PM +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
>> 2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
>> >
>> > I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd
>> > also
>> > make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a proble
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:23:43PM +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
> 2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
> >
> > I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd
> > also
> > make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a problem. You see a
> > problem, you
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Peter Czanik wrote:
> 2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
>> Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>>> So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a concept
>>> of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word from usage
>>> about maintai
2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
> Dave Airlie wrote:
>
>> So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a concept
>> of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word from usage
>> about maintainership.
>>
> +1
>
> IMHO any sponsored packager sho
Dne 2.7.2010 06:28, Adam Miller napsal(a):
> I don't think it really matters what we call it, I just think that
> package maintainers are starting to get a sense of entitlement and I
> feel that's counter productive to the open environment we're used to
> and are trying to help continue to grow.
I
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 23:28 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> I don't think it really matters what we call it, I just think that
> package maintainers are starting to get a sense of entitlement and I
> feel that's counter productive to the open environment we're used to
> and are trying to help continue
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:44:29 -0400
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. There needs to be somebody in the Fedora community with a
> long-term commitment to each package. Perhaps the term "owner" is
> politically incorrect but nonetheless there is always going to be
> somebody who knows more about that packa
On 07/02/2010 06:34 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely,
>>> that'd also make orphan
Kevin Fenzi writes:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> While I agree that package "ownership" should not feel possessive, I
>> do strongly feel that there still should be some single person (or
>> team I suppose...) who is ultimately responsible for the package. A
>> place for bug reports, for autoqa act
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700
Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely,
> > that'd also make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a
> > prob
I don't think it really matters what we call it, I just think that
package maintainers are starting to get a sense of entitlement and I
feel that's counter productive to the open environment we're used to
and are trying to help continue to grow.
The package "owner" gets emails about cvs commits, s
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:16:35 +1000
Dave Airlie wrote:
> So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a
> concept of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word
> from usage about maintainership.
...snip...
I agree. I think 'stewards' or 'guardian' or something mi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd also
> make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a problem. You see a
> problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the package has
Dave Airlie wrote:
> So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a concept
> of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word from usage
> about maintainership.
+1
IMHO any sponsored packager should be free to do changes which benefit the
Fedora Project to any pack
I agree. The relevant concept is not "owner", but "sucker", or "victim".
When businessspeak people say someone "owns" a piece of work, what they
mean is to identify the person as the recipient of problems, complaints,
pleas for help, and perhaps even, rarely, praise, regarding the state of
the wor
So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a concept
of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word from usage
about maintainership.
I'm come from working as a maintainer in the kernel, and its long been
said that kernel maintainers don't *own* the code, they are
50 matches
Mail list logo
