FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-06-2008, 02:41 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:42AM -0500, Steve Conklin wrote:
>
> It was an accident, and I have no hard feelings toward anyone over this,
> but I'm not happy that the package ownership process (or lack of one)
> allowed this to happen so easily.

The policy here is the non responsive maintainer policy. Otherwise the
primary maintainer should not be changed. However the redhat folks don't
seem to follow this procedure and instead it seems that change in package
maintainers owned by people @redhat is done by other procedures,
including with more sharing of responsibility over package among groups.

I am not sure that there is something that can be done in fedora about
that issue. Maybe the exception should be written down explicitly such
that people like you who is at redhat and in the community knows who
to contact @redhat to follow the fedora rules.

Also maybe I am mistaken and there are no specific rules for redhat
people, only remnants from the past (like the many agg co-maintainer I
have who are certainly not interested).

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 02:42 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 04:41:07PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:42AM -0500, Steve Conklin wrote:
> >
> > It was an accident, and I have no hard feelings toward anyone over this,
> > but I'm not happy that the package ownership process (or lack of one)
> > allowed this to happen so easily.
>
> The policy here is the non responsive maintainer policy. Otherwise the

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 03:38 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

Patrice Dumas wrote:

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:42AM -0500, Steve Conklin wrote:

It was an accident, and I have no hard feelings toward anyone over this,
but I'm not happy that the package ownership process (or lack of one)
allowed this to happen so easily.


The policy here is the non responsive maintainer policy. Otherwise the
primary maintainer should not be changed. However the redhat folks don't
seem to follow this procedure and instead it seems that change in package

maintainers owned by people @redhat is done by other procedures,
including with more sharing of responsibility over package among groups.

I am not sure that there is something that can be done in fedora about
that issue. Maybe the exception should be written down explicitly such
that people like you who is at redhat and in the community knows who
to contact @redhat to follow the fedora rules.


Maybe what could be done is to mark packages a person as maintaining a
package as part of Red Hat employment (or employment in general) then it
would be simpler to say no longer working for Company Foo, therefore no
longer a maintainer of Package Bar.


However, even that's not perfect as other people will leave and maintain
packages they were paid to work on as part of the greater community.


-Toshio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 03:39 PM
Steve Grubb
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

On Friday 06 June 2008 10:16:42 Steve Conklin wrote:
> I only gave up maintaining some security packages when I left Red Hat,
> and I'm certainly still involved in Fedora and never intended to give up
> these packages.

This seems to be the crux of the problem. No built in orphaning process and we
needed to start getting some updates on certain security packages.


> I didn't remove myself from these packages - someone else did it without
> checking with me.
>
> It was an accident, and I have no hard feelings toward anyone over this,

Yes, if you were still wanting to maintain a few of these, it was an accident
and this would be my fault. I apologize for this. I checked a couple security
packages that needs work and they had your old redhat address. So, I asked
for your packages to be released so that we could continue working on them.

I guess the moral of the story to anyone else is if you leave Red Hat, please
orphan your packages before you leave and/or add your external email address
if you still want to be involved with certain packages.

Thanks,
-Steve

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 03:55 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 16:41 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
> The policy here is the non responsive maintainer policy. Otherwise the
> primary maintainer should not be changed. However the redhat folks don't
> seem to follow this procedure and instead it seems that change in package
> maintainers owned by people @redhat is done by other procedures,
> including with more sharing of responsibility over package among groups.
>
> I am not sure that there is something that can be done in fedora about
> that issue. Maybe the exception should be written down explicitly such
> that people like you who is at redhat and in the community knows who
> to contact @redhat to follow the fedora rules.
>
> Also maybe I am mistaken and there are no specific rules for redhat
> people, only remnants from the past (like the many agg co-maintainer I
> have who are certainly not interested).
>

Part of the problem is the CLA entry. Many Red Hat employees have a CLA
attached to their account through the redhat_cla, that is part of their
employment contract. When they leave Red Hat, that contract is no
longer valid, nor is their CLA status. In actuality, this is true of
any Fedora contributor that changes employers, we just have less
visibility into that and assume the maintainer is doing the right thing
wrt to their CLA status.

I've asked Casey to put some thought into a process we can use when we
become aware of somebody changing their CLA status, like leaving Red
Hat, especially if we know ahead of time that they are leaving Fedora at
the same time. Waiting for bugzilla entries to be replied to when
they're assigned to a non-valid email address seems like a bit of a
waste.

All in all, there is definitely some room for better process here.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 04:01 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:20AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Friday 06 June 2008 10:16:42 Steve Conklin wrote:
> > I only gave up maintaining some security packages when I left Red Hat,
> > and I'm certainly still involved in Fedora and never intended to give up
> > these packages.
>
> This seems to be the crux of the problem. No built in orphaning process and we
> needed to start getting some updates on certain security packages.

There is
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers
(and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/OrphanedPackages
)

> Yes, if you were still wanting to maintain a few of these, it was an accident
> and this would be my fault. I apologize for this. I checked a couple security
> packages that needs work and they had your old redhat address. So, I asked
> for your packages to be released so that we could continue working on them.

Why didn't you go through the process outlined in the policy? Is it
because you didn't know about it?

> I guess the moral of the story to anyone else is if you leave Red Hat, please
> orphan your packages before you leave and/or add your external email address
> if you still want to be involved with certain packages.

This would be nice, and it could also be possible that th enon
responsive maintainer policy is also done ofr redhat people. If it is
not th ecase, it would be nice to have it written in the wiki.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 04:10 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:55:19AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> Part of the problem is the CLA entry. Many Red Hat employees have a CLA
> attached to their account through the redhat_cla, that is part of their
> employment contract. When they leave Red Hat, that contract is no
> longer valid, nor is their CLA status. In actuality, this is true of
> any Fedora contributor that changes employers, we just have less
> visibility into that and assume the maintainer is doing the right thing
> wrt to their CLA status.

Maybe it could also be possible for some employees to go through regular
sponsorship and use the regular CLA. I understand that it is not always
possible, sometime redhat wants to hire somebody to work on packages
without going through the fedora formal process, but I think that
@redhat people interested in being part of the fedora community are
likely to be able to go through the fedora process (even though not when
they have just arrived).

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 04:22 PM
Steve Grubb
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

On Friday 06 June 2008 12:01:33 Patrice Dumas wrote:
> There is
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMainta
>iners (and
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/OrphanedPackages
> )
>
> > Yes, if you were still wanting to maintain a few of these, it was an
> > accident and this would be my fault. I apologize for this. I checked a
> > couple security packages that needs work and they had your old redhat
> > address. So, I asked for your packages to be released so that we could
> > continue working on them.
>
> Why didn't you go through the process outlined in the policy? Is it
> because you didn't know about it?

This is not a typical non-responsive maintainer problem. His email account
listed on the package db entry is closed for a fact. So, why follow a
proceedure that will take a few weeks when I know for a fact that I need to
reassign some packages?

I suspect the orphaning process should be followed in cases like this - but
before its too late.

-Steve

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 04:30 PM
Till Maas
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

On Fri June 6 2008, Steve Grubb wrote:

> This is not a typical non-responsive maintainer problem. His email account
> listed on the package db entry is closed for a fact. So, why follow a
> proceedure that will take a few weeks when I know for a fact that I need to
> reassign some packages?

Did he also loose his FAS account? If not, then he could have updated his
email address in FAS.

Regards,
Till
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 05:01 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 18:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Maybe it could also be possible for some employees to go through regular
> sponsorship and use the regular CLA. I understand that it is not always
> possible, sometime redhat wants to hire somebody to work on packages
> without going through the fedora formal process, but I think that
> @redhat people interested in being part of the fedora community are
> likely to be able to go through the fedora process (even though not when
> they have just arrived).

Regardless if which method they obtain CLA, once they end their
employment with Red Hat that CLA is technically no longer valid,
particularly if they take employment with somebody else. Sadly this is
a pretty big gaping hole in our system.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:42 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org