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 06-13-2008, 08:06 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Collective maintenance

Hi,

A friend of mine pinged me and asked about the status of this bug

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442921

Just using this as an example here since it a simple one. This is
apparently just a simple missing dependency but hasn't been fixed in a
while. Just using this as a example, assuming that the maintainer is
busy, on vacation or something and cvsextras is open, many others could
fix this issue bypassing the primary maintainer for the moment but there
doesn't seem to be any policy on what kind of fixes can be collectively
done. I remember seeing similar discussions before so this isn't a
isolated problem. Do we need some guidelines on this so folks like
Michael Schwendt (again, just as an example specific to this bug report)
can just go ahead and fix the problem noting the details in the commit
message instead of having to file a bug report?


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 08:17 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
 
Default Collective maintenance

> Hi,
>
> A friend of mine pinged me and asked about the status of this bug
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442921
>
> Just using this as an example here since it a simple one. This is
> apparently just a simple missing dependency but hasn't been fixed in a
> while. Just using this as a example, assuming that the maintainer is
> busy, on vacation or something and cvsextras is open, many others could
> fix this issue bypassing the primary maintainer for the moment but there
> doesn't seem to be any policy on what kind of fixes can be collectively
> done. I remember seeing similar discussions before so this isn't a
> isolated problem. Do we need some guidelines on this so folks like
> Michael Schwendt (again, just as an example specific to this bug report)
> can just go ahead and fix the problem noting the details in the commit
> message instead of having to file a bug report?

My left brain side says, maybe we need a policy. My right brain side
says, if the acl is open, and you can fix it, fix it.

Might actually check out doing that on some easy bugs I've reported.

-J

> Rahul
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>


--
novus ordo absurdum

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 08:27 PM
"Jesse Keating"
 
Default Collective maintenance

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Jon Ciesla <limb@jcomserv.net> wrote:



> Hi,

>

> A friend of mine pinged me and asked about the status of this bug

>

> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442921

>

> Just using this as an example here since it a simple one. This is

> apparently just a simple missing dependency but hasn't been fixed in a

> while. Just using this as a example, assuming that the maintainer is

> busy, on vacation or something and cvsextras is open, many others could

> fix this issue bypassing the primary maintainer for the moment but there

> doesn't seem to be any policy on what kind of fixes can be collectively

> done. I remember seeing similar discussions before so this isn't a

> isolated problem. Do we need some guidelines on this so folks like

> Michael Schwendt (again, just as an example specific to this bug report)

> can just go ahead and fix the problem noting the details in the commit

> message instead of having to file a bug report?



My left brain side says, maybe we need a policy. *My right brain side

says, if the acl is open, and you can fix it, fix it.



Might actually check out doing that on some easy bugs I've reported.



It's a tough call, and really comes down to an issue by issue thing.* In this issue there are a couple things going against it.

1) It's a bug regarding a released version, so any changes would require bodhi updates


2) it's essentially enabling a feature, that may or may not work and one would hope that if there was a reason this wasn't turned on, it would be listed in the spec file.

For those reasons, I wouldn't be quick to jump in and try to fix it.* It'd be worth doing a scratch build just to see if it would compile, and maybe work but I still wouldn't feel comfortable without talking to the maintainer in question first.


--
Jes


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 08:28 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Collective maintenance

Jon Ciesla wrote:

Hi,

A friend of mine pinged me and asked about the status of this bug

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442921

Just using this as an example here since it a simple one. This is
apparently just a simple missing dependency but hasn't been fixed in a
while. Just using this as a example, assuming that the maintainer is
busy, on vacation or something and cvsextras is open, many others could
fix this issue bypassing the primary maintainer for the moment but there
doesn't seem to be any policy on what kind of fixes can be collectively
done. I remember seeing similar discussions before so this isn't a
isolated problem. Do we need some guidelines on this so folks like
Michael Schwendt (again, just as an example specific to this bug report)
can just go ahead and fix the problem noting the details in the commit
message instead of having to file a bug report?


My left brain side says, maybe we need a policy. My right brain side
says, if the acl is open, and you can fix it, fix it.


The problem there is one of expectations. Some maintainers are
completely ok with this. Personally, I don't have a problem with anyone
fixing any bugs on the packages I maintain and would be thankful for
that. Other maintainers want more "ownership" and would prefer to be
personally notified or do the changes themselves. Technically, we are
good to go in most cases since the ACL's are open for majority of the
packages. Socially, we are not since there isn't any policy and people
don't want to offend existing maintainers by bypassing them (with
notable exceptions like the Red Hat desktop team). I would prefer a
policy that blurred the line of ownership more to a culture of
collective maintenance and sets the right expectations for everyone
involved. Then we can follow that up by having bugzilla be aware of easy
to fix bugs and people who are interested in doing simple fixes can do
that when they find time in between sponsors, SIG's and so on.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 09:32 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Collective maintenance

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:27:46 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:

> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442921

> 1) It's a bug regarding a released version, so any changes would require
> bodhi updates

Plus:
- check other open bugs
- check whether there's a new upstream release

Else it would be a test update just for this fix, and possibly another one
right after that because the maintainer awakes and dislikes the small
fix-update that doesn't address other issues. It could even be that
additional problems are not covered in bugzilla. I wouldn't want to work
on this bug without talking to the package maintainer first.

> 2) it's essentially enabling a feature, that may or may not work and one
> would hope that if there was a reason this wasn't turned on, it would be
> listed in the spec file.
>
> For those reasons, I wouldn't be quick to jump in and try to fix it. It'd
> be worth doing a scratch build just to see if it would compile, and maybe
> work but I still wouldn't feel comfortable without talking to the maintainer
> in question first.

And the maintainer already works with the next upstream release series [in
rawhide]. It would not be the first time that those packages are pushed to
the other branches. It has been done before with Audacious, even with
changes in the plugin ABI+API.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 09:32 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Collective maintenance

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 01:36:40AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A friend of mine pinged me and asked about the status of this bug
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442921
>
> Just using this as an example here since it a simple one. This is
> apparently just a simple missing dependency but hasn't been fixed in a
> while. Just using this as a example, assuming that the maintainer is
> busy, on vacation or something and cvsextras is open, many others could
> fix this issue bypassing the primary maintainer for the moment but there
> doesn't seem to be any policy on what kind of fixes can be collectively
> done.

There is a policy, here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToModifyWhichPackages
But it doesn't cover the case you are seing, this is the typical
'easyfix but maintainer is not responding'.

> I remember seeing similar discussions before so this isn't a
> isolated problem.

Indeed. I keep asking people to do some guidelines, I think that it is
unfortunate, but it happens too often in fedora. I have easyfix or bugs
where I propose to do the work that are opened for months if not more,
if I was a casual user, I would find this unacceptable.

> can just go ahead and fix the problem noting the details in the commit
> message instead of having to file a bug report?

I don't think this is right either. In my opinion cases where it is ok
to do something like that are rightly covered in the policy mentionned
above. I think that a specific policy is needed which would be more
similar with the missing in action policy, but for a particular easyfix
bug where somebody is ready to do the work, and not for a maintainer.
Some people proposed to escalate to FESCO such cases, but I think it is
much too common to use FESCo escalation for those cases.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 09:50 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Collective maintenance

Patrice Dumas wrote:

Indeed. I keep asking people to do some guidelines, I think that it is
unfortunate, but it happens too often in fedora. I have easyfix or bugs
where I propose to do the work that are opened for months if not more,
if I was a casual user, I would find this unacceptable.


If you on IRC or if you can mail me offlist, we can work on a policy (or
a modification of the existing one) and propose that instead of waiting
for this to be done by others. Since you are keenly aware of the problem
that I am talking about, your help is appreciated. Thanks.


Rahul

--
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 04:36 PM.

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