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 07-02-2010, 09:44 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:33:52 +0100, Mark wrote:

> ProvenPackagers are there precisely to do what it looks like happened
> with : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8618

Wait a minute, it's not that easy. Provenpackagers are not supposed to
jump in every N months, apply a fix, but leave a package unmaintained
for the rest of the time. Such a package should become an orphan and be
assigned to a new maintainer. What's currently referred to as "package
owner(s)" is the primary maintainer(s) who ought to keep the packages
and builds in a good state and who also ought to take care of bugzilla
tickets.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 10:03 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:40:11 +0200, Matěj wrote:

> Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
> > Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans
> > to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons
> > for not upgrading the package. Just ask!
>
> The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about "owning" a
> package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in
> my thinking.

The provenpackager, who has had 8 month to notice such a problem, has had
8 months to start the non-responsive maintainer procedure. What will
happen the next time the package is affected by a bad problem? Does the
same provenpackager now keep an eye on the package and will be available
to fix it much sooner? Or will it takes 8 months again, because that is
possible in the Fedora package collection?

> Matěj
>
> </thread>

Feel free to consider it closed and don't reply anymore.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 10:08 AM
Stanislav Ochotnicky
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

Excerpts from Michael Schwendt's message of Fri Jul 02 11:34:38 +0200 2010:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote:
>
> > IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone
> > with commit access updating packages in Rawhide
>
> Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans
> to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons
> for not upgrading the package. Just ask!
>
> Btw, there is:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages

There was email sent out to perl mailing list about this AFAIK. And NOT
one person sent an email to complain (I believe there was a few day window
between mail sent to perl mailing list and mass change of packagers)

--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com>
Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

PGP: 71A1677C
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 10:08 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:40:11AM +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
> > Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans
> > to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons
> > for not upgrading the package. Just ask!
>
> The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about "owning" a
> package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in
> my thinking.

I think that this is very wrong. I don't know the specifics of this package
either, but I remember that for one of my packages, I had to hold of
correcting a FTBS because it meant upgrading, and I coudn't do that
because of some incompatibilities.

Bottom line is -- unless it changed -- in the spirit of provenpackager
policies for non urgent things like FTBS, provenpackagers should do
as little as possible, contact packagers before doing anything, do change
in cvs but let time for the packager to build or revert.

--
Pat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 10:16 AM
Chen Lei
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

2010/7/2 Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr>:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:40:11AM +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote:
>> Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
>> > Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans
>> > to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons
>> > for not upgrading the package. Just ask!
>>
>> The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about "owning" a
>> package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in
>> my thinking.
>
> I think that this is very wrong. I don't know the specifics of this package
> either, but I remember that for one of my packages, I had to hold of
> correcting a FTBS because it meant upgrading, and I coudn't do that
> because of some incompatibilities.
>
> Bottom line is -- unless it changed -- in the spirit of provenpackager
> policies for non urgent things like FTBS, provenpackagers should do
> as little as possible, contact packagers before doing anything, do change
> in cvs but let time for the packager to build or revert.
>
> --
> Pat
> --

However, FTBFS in rawhide is not allowed, your package will be
orphaned/cleaned if it has a FTBFS bug for two release cycles.

Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 10:16 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

On 07/02/2010 12:08 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Excerpts from Michael Schwendt's message of Fri Jul 02 11:34:38 +0200 2010:
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone
>>> with commit access updating packages in Rawhide
>>
>> Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans
>> to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons
>> for not upgrading the package. Just ask!
>>
>> Btw, there is:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages
>
> There was email sent out to perl mailing list about this AFAIK.
Correct.

> And NOT
> one person sent an email to complain (I believe there was a few day window
> between mail sent to perl mailing list and mass change of packagers)

There have been related actions on other lists, and there have been
complaints and discussions off-list.

Ralf



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 10:29 AM
Chen Lei
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

2010/7/2 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:40:11 +0200, Matěj wrote:
>
>> Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
>> > Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans
>> > to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons
>> > for not upgrading the package. Just ask!
>>
>> The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about "owning" a
>> package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in
>> my thinking.
>
> The provenpackager, who has had 8 month to notice such a problem, has had
> 8 months to start the non-responsive maintainer procedure. What will
> happen the next time the package is affected by a bad problem? Does the
> same provenpackager now keep an eye on the package and will be available
> to fix it much sooner? Or will it takes 8 months again, because that is
> possible in the Fedora package collection?
>

This procedure is a bit idealistic, IMHO.

A package which has a FTBFS bug will wait for two release cycles
before orphaning it, it's too long(many of those FTBFS packages can
work properly). Furthermore, we don't even have a way to orphan a
particular package which is unmaintained or has a lot of unsolved
issues but don't have a FTBFS bug.

Regards,
Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 10:42 AM
Mark Chappell
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:33:52 +0100, Mark wrote:
>
>> ProvenPackagers are there precisely to do what it looks like happened
>> with : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8618
>
> Wait a minute, it's not that easy. Provenpackagers are not supposed to
> jump in every N months, apply a fix, but leave a package unmaintained
> for the rest of the time. Such a package should become an orphan and be
> assigned to a new maintainer.

Yes, but they are supposed to fix significant issue like Perl packages
which FTBFS after a PERL version update if the maintainer doesn't. Or
long standing bugs with NO comments from the developers. Should they
also then kick off the orphaning process would be a question for FESCo


Mark
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 10:48 AM
Mark Chappell
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I think that this is very wrong. I don't know the specifics of this package
> either, but I remember that for one of my packages, I had to hold of
> correcting a FTBS because it meant upgrading, and I coudn't do that
> because of some incompatibilities.

So at least comment on the Bugzilla ticket, at which point the PP would
know what was going on and leave well alone.


Mark
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 11:05 AM
Felix Kaechele
 
Default who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

I get the feeling that no one on this thread has looked into
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/403

So this has already been handled by FESCo, mistakes have been made and
most likely will be avoided in the future.

Felix
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 PM.

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