David Airlie wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brian C. Lane" <bcl@xxxxxxxxxx> >> To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Sent: Thursday, 19 November, 2015 7:05:57 AM >> Subject: Re: Dealing with the "my packages" problem >> >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:24:37PM -0500, Rob Crittenden wrote: >>> Matthew Miller wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:08:24PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>> After some IRC discussion I've come to the following proposal: that >>>>> maintainers have some way to easily indicate how open they are to >>>>> external contributions. Basically this would take the form of a few >>>>> options in pkgdb where maintainers can indicate their willingness to >>>>> have provenpackagers carry out a few actions. Please read the github >>>>> ticket for details: >>>>> https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgdb2/issues/274 >>>> >>>> What if we made the options be about _the package_ rather than about >>>> the maintainer's prickliness? Rather than "Please don't touch my >>>> package" (I know that's not your wording; added for emphasis) make it >>>> "This package has unusual complications; please coordinate any changes >>>> with the package maintainers." >>>> >>>> Well, except, less wordy. :) >>>> >>>> And, in thinking about it, I don't think we should encourage the >>>> option of "Don't even ask". If there really _is_ something that's a big >>>> deal, the package maintainer can always say no when asked. >>>> >>> >>> As one of the complainers about current policy, here are my thoughts. >>> >>> I appreciate tibbs bringing up the discussion. I'd vote for a default >>> stance of "Ask first." >> >> I don't think we need a technical solution, we just need the people who >> feel the need to modify packages they aren't normally involved with to >> ask first. It doesn't matter how simple or complicated the change is, >> just be polite. > > But that doesn't scale. > > And scaling is important. We aren't developing a set of 4000s silos here, > we are meant to be developing a coherent operating system. I have no insight into how many packages provenpackers are tweaking. I guess I'd hope that the number would be low because of responsible package <insert favorite synonym for maintainer>. I assume the number of changes is << 4000. > You don't stuff, get over it, maintain it as best you can, if someone else > screws it up, git revert and move on. If someone persistently screws things > up then we should deal with *that* problem. I don't think we have anyone > actively trying to screw up Fedora, so in theory we are all on the same team > and pulling in the same direction. So maybe if we started with an attitude > that they are have a good reason for touching the package, and worked with > that instead of defaulting to silos it would help a lot more. That may be true but hopefully in most cases the maintainer or co-maintainer knows a bit more about the package than some random provenpackager. Having to revert changes is non-zero work. I also wonder if I revert a provenpackager change, is that the end of it? Who is the arbiter in this case if not? rob -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
