On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 18:44 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:09:33 +0800 > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I agree. > > > > I believe that package ownership has at least a couple of clear > > advantages for obvious reasons and I find it hard to understand how > > people can discount their usefulness. > > > > 1) A point of contact and co-ordination for changes is needed. > > > > Often, when dealing with difficult problems it's necessary to seek > > advice from maintainers of other packages. Being able to find out who > > that is and having at least some chance they will be familiar with > > upstream package status is important. > > > > 2) Taking (even notional) ownership of a package implies there is at > > least some interest in the package from an upstream POV. > > > > Some (probably many) packages need a packager to take an interest in > > what is happening upstream. Building relationships with upstream > > maintainers doesn't always work too well but even that is an > > important part of knowing what the upstream status of a package is. > > > > This is essential to be able to provide 1) above, someone who has some > > understanding of the upstream status really is needed to at least > > help keep our packages as stable as we can. > > > > It's true that package owners don't always have enough upstream > > knowledge of packages they own or relationships with upstream but > > that doesn't mean that ownership is a bad thing. After all a point of > > contact is still needed IMHO. > > I agree with what you are saying, but disagree that anything above > requires you to "own" packages and guard them from anyone else. > > You can still be a point of contact and/or interested upstream and want > to help keep the packages in Fedora high quality and working, but still > be willing to work as part of the entire collection of maintainers not > isolated or defensive. We all want to improve things, even if we make > mistakes doing so. Sure, anyone that argues against this is not playing well with others. But I do feel like my use of "owner" has been misunderstood. I certainly don't mind if changes are made to packages I look after, it happens and is mostly not a problem. So I think the problem being discussed won't be resolved by changing to a model of not having a package "owner" (however that's defined), it's not process or policy, it's behavioural based. That's probably not going to change no matter what efforts are made to change processes and policy. So I don't really know what to say to improve matters, sorry. Ian -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
