>>>>> "TL" == Thorsten Leemhuis writes: TL> On 05.03.2009 21:44, Jon Stanley wrote: >> >> 57 Make stronger policy/guideline that ABI/API/soname breakage should >> always be announced fedora-devel-announce (not f-d-l) TL> Why not simply mail f-d-l as well as all the maintainers of packages TL> that are affected (and not fedora-devel-announce!)? A simple command TL> line script is able to do that in case MTA's like sendmail or postfix TL> are properly configured. That script likely could write a comma TL> separated list that people can cut-n-paste to Thunderbird, Kmail and TL> other MUA's if needed. TL> Reason: I for one slowly start to get annoyed by the slowly increasing TL> traffic on fedora-devel-announce that clutters my inbox. Thus I TL> started to consider to move mails from that list into some IMAP folder TL> automatically, and that is exactly what we didn't want people to do TL> when fedora-devel-announce was created. I think we said something like TL> "less then 10 mails a month" back when we created it, but I could not TL> find that on a quick google search :-/ In a quick check on the archives, there seems to an average of around 15-20 e-mails per month on fedora-devel-announce (f-d-a) in recent months. Some months it is lower. I do not consider that high traffic. Regarding sending to maintainers of packages that are affected, I agree that would also be a good idea, but it's often difficult to find out exactly which packages are affected. Yes, I know you can run repoquery to find those packages in most cases, but: 1) most maintainers are unaware of, or do not use repoquery regularly (even though they probably should) To solve this, ideally we could perhaps create new aliases that maintainers could simply use to contact all downstream affected packages in one fell swoop, e.g. <packagename>-dependent-packages-owners@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx that would be populated by a list of e-mail addresses for owners of all dependent packages, which would be created by a repoquery run at initial package creation. It would also have to be updated as some kind of cron job as potentially dependent packages are added or removed from the repository. 2) even if repoquery is run does not necessarily collect all affected packages. In some cases these ABI changes have an effect beyond the immediate list of packages that repoquery will list. e.g. an update of the mono stack may affect a large number of packages and overall distro integration beyond what can be expressed by package deps. Since a creation of such a system in (1) is probably a ways off and still doesn't necessarily solve (2), I still think mailing f-d-a makes the most sense. ABI/soname breakage are exactly the kind of thing that it is worth bringing to attention to the greater Fedora community, which is what f-d-a was intended to solve. However, there should definitely be a few exceptions to the rule of announcement if maintainer performing the breakage, either 1) owns all the affected packages and is planning to rebuild them, or 2) is a provenpackager/co-maintainer, or otherwise has access and who is intending to rebuild all affected packages (e.g. xulrunner/firefox). In those cases, a heads-up on f-d-l might be nice, but probably not mandatory (although even in thoses cases there may be dependent packages that the maintainer is not aware of). Lastly, all replies to f-d-a are redirected to f-d-l, and f-d-a is moderated, both of which should keep the list traffic to the currently manageable level. Alex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
