2016-02-03 17:04 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 03/02/16 08:44 -0700, Jerry James wrote: > >> 1. Demotivating packagers >> >> I know a number of companies have experimented with "ownership-free" >> models of code development, but they are able to offer incentives that >> Fedora cannot offer, such as money and kudos offered in front of >> coworkers. What motivates volunteer packagers to do what they do? >> I'd like to hear from a few packagers on this topic. > > > I want Fedora to be better. > >> If I send these two provenpackagers a somewhat hostile email, are you >> going to blame me? I have no problem with most provenpackager >> changes. In general, they have an obvious purpose and save me the >> work of making the same change myself. But changes like the ones >> above make more work for me, work that could have been avoided if the >> provenpackager in question had just bothered to make some attempt, any >> attempt, to contact me first. > > > I don't think that's always realistic to expect. > > When a provenpackager is rebuilding *hundreds* of packages at once, > and trying to deal with maybe dozens of build failures, sending emails > to all the package owners and waiting to see if they respond promptly > is not an efficient way to get things fixed. Waiting for a reply adds > a lot of latency, and then you have to context-switch back to a > package you were dealing with a day or two ago. That's impractical > when you have a patch ready to go now and loads more packages to look > at. > I disagree with you on that point. I agree with the premises that we can't expect provenpackagers to contact every single maintainers for fixing a large number of packages at once, but that's the role of fedora devel list. If you can't contact everyone, a message on fedora-devel is good enough. For instance, the desktop team maintains a spreadsheet before GNOME rebuilds so that package maintainers can give their input before a provenpackager do the builds. That allows maintainer to provide valuable feedback like avoiding borken versions upstream, or how to update patchset if they're maintained in a specific way. > Sometimes a provenpackager will make a bad change, and that's > unfortunate, but it happens. Sometimes package owners make bad changes > too! :-) > Yes, but provided that they sent a heads-up on usual communication channels, there's no problem with it. > If I make a bad change to a package please do let me know. If I appear > to change things and walk away it's probably because I've moved on to > look at other packages that also need attention, not just a careless > hit & run. I would expect it's similar for others. > As a provenpackager, I always ping maintainers, and try to minimize impact (e.g not fixing spec to my personal liking w/o agreement) As a packager, I usually go through the changes, unless it broke something or is non-trivial, I'm fine with letting it go. <joke>If you add epoch to packages I co-maintain without telling me, I'll hate you until the ends of time ;-)</joke> > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
