On 27.06.2014 00:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:39:52 +0200
Sandro Mani <manisandro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So the thing that should be avoided IMO is not defining well enough
how the procedure should work, to avoid getting swamped with patches
which require additional work to apply. The requirement to fill out
post a "New Package Request" style form to the bug should allow most
of the work to be scripted, and ideally the proven packager would
just need to look at the patch, and if happy, fire the script.
So maybe such a policy could look something like this [1]. Contrarily
to what I wrote initially, I think it might actually make sense to
allow also non-packagers to file such requests, and it would provide
another way of showing off experience which will eventually lead to
one getting sponsored.
Sandro
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Smani/Trivial_Patch_Policy_%28draft%29
A few comments:
- Not sure 'trivial' really covers the things you list in examples.
FTBFS could be more than trivial depending on the patch. Perhaps the
entire thing could be 'simple patches' or 'easy patches'
Right. So the list Yaakov Selkowitz posted elsewhere in this thread
gives a good set of possible FTBFS causes. I'm not sure all FTBFS should
be covered by such a policy, but if it is only a matter of fixing bad
BRs, format security issues or makefile issues, these should fall under
the accepted category. If the FTBFS fix involves porting for API/ABI
breaks, then IMO that does not fall under this category. But yeah,
simple might be more appropriate terminology.
- 'flags' are a pain to get bugzilla folks to add and manage. How about
a blocker bug instead? Then interested maintainers could simply cc to
the blocker bug to notice when new things are added. You just add the
patch bug to the blocks of the tracker.
I guess this would work just as well!
- Should this be rawhide only? That would avoid 'trivial' patches that
cause a problem from affecting users that aren't as able to debug
them.
What about rawhide for all and stable releases for packagers only?
Draft updated accordingly.
Thanks,
Sandro
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
