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 07-01-2010, 10:16 PM
Dave Airlie
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

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 merely the
stewards of the code and the code belongs to everyone. Linus reminds you
of this by routinely doing stuff to code behind your back and when you
give out he reminds you that maintainership doesn't imply ownership.

I see Fedora maintainers as doing things on behalf of the Fedora
project, and not merely providing the Fedora project with stuff they
own, but I see a lot of others see "me owns this package" as the
priority not "me enjoys maintaining things on behalf of Fedora".

Dave.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 12:05 AM
Roland McGrath
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

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 work. We don't own the code, the code owns us. It knows where we
live, and it keeps bringing people over and expecting us to feed them.

When a robot sends me email via an alias that ends with "-owner",
I never, ever, get the feeling that I am the one in charge.


Thanks,
Roland
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 01:18 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

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 package, no matter who officially maintains the
package. And such changes include things like upgrading the package to the
current upstream release in Rawhide, especially when that release is needed
for other packages. Even a provenpackager can't always make such changes
without getting yelled at.

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?

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 04:17 AM
Jesse Keating
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

-----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 an active maintainer
> or not?

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 activity, for reviewing potential patches and
changes from other people, etc...

- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkwtaF8ACgkQ4v2HLvE71NXCCwCgxoNtzgQ/DDpx78uI4jjodHSu
GTYAnAxN9OwDW/qnXMDnZKfp4zCNG8NO
=F1ef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 04:20 AM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:16:35 +1000
Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> 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 might be better,
but those don't quite work either. ;(

The packages I steward for Fedora (with a few exceptions of things I
should orphan or the like) I use and enjoy using, and wish to make sure
they are in good shape for others to use and enjoy too. I think it's
always been the case that something you use and enjoy and want other
people to use and enjoy ends up handled much better than something you
"own" for other reasons.

kevin
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 04:28 AM
Adam Miller
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

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, so they are always
aware of what's going on and can review the changes to packages they
maintain. In the event of a discrepancy then the person receiving the
email obviously has an email account and can easily email the person
who made the edit in order to extend a friendly inquiry as to the
change. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

I for one welcome co-maintainers because I'm a big fan of
collaboration and a sense of community, and if I can't trust my fellow
community member and contributor to help in the maintenance of
packages that I just so happen to have a bit flipped for in the pkgdb,
then I'm in the wrong place.

-AdamM

--
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 04:34 AM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700
Jesse Keating <jkeating@j2solutions.net> 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
> > problem. You see a problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the
> > package has an active maintainer or not?
>
> 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 activity, for reviewing potential
> patches and changes from other people, etc...

Agreed. While wandering provenpackagers or whoever can assist with
sticky issues, there needs to be a group of people who manage bugs,
build a relationship with upstream, follow upstream development, etc.

So, while I think we should try and reduce the possessiveness of
"owning" packages, we still need a group of stewards or whatever for
packages.


kevin
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 04:44 AM
Tom Lane
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

Kevin Fenzi <kevin@scrye.com> writes:
> Jesse Keating <jkeating@j2solutions.net> 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 activity, for reviewing potential
>> patches and changes from other people, etc...

> Agreed. While wandering provenpackagers or whoever can assist with
> sticky issues, there needs to be a group of people who manage bugs,
> build a relationship with upstream, follow upstream development, etc.

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 package than anybody else in Fedora.
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 not interchangeable parts.

regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 04:48 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

On 07/02/2010 06:34 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700
> Jesse Keating<jkeating@j2solutions.net> 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
>>> problem. You see a problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the
>>> package has an active maintainer or not?
>>
>> While I agree that package "ownership" should not feel possessive,
Should the name "owner" be an issue, why not call them by what they
actually are, "maintainer" and "co-maintainer"?

> Agreed. While wandering provenpackagers or whoever can assist with
> sticky issues, there needs to be a group of people who manage bugs,
> build a relationship with upstream, follow upstream development, etc.
Agreed.

> So, while I think we should try and reduce the possessiveness of
> "owning" packages, we still need a group of stewards or whatever for
> packages.
We need groups, with "grouped privileges/acls" etc. It's essentially
what e.g. the "perl-sig" originally was meant to be.

Unfortunately, technical limitations of Fedora's "packager
infrastructure" so far have prevented to take full advantage of this
(c.f. "Petr's" mass acl-changes in recent weeks).

Ralf

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-02-2010, 05:01 AM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default concept of package "ownership"

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:44:29 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@redhat.com> 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 package than anybody else in
> Fedora.

Sure. But they should also welcome others joining them, not say "I own
this package, its mine all mine!", IMHO.

> 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 not interchangeable parts.

Which Kevin? I never intended to say any such thing...

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:48 AM.

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