On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Graham Leggett wrote: > In this case, we have the needs of the Fedora project (this > change) stacked up against your needs (your reluctance to > perform a task). This line of argument is a 'straw man' as are several other rationalizations advanced for NOT giving effective notice. As I read the thread, Steve has never said he was 'reluctant' nor that he was unwilling to make changes, but rather he said that he was troubled when PP changes 'get dropped on him' as maintainer without effective prior indication that there is an issue The bugzilla, and tracking bugs, and Blockers and Depends are just not that hard to use. Much automation in this regard exists -- FTBFS, etc -- bugzilla had an API for just such a purpose The proponents of simply making a change and letting the maintainer take his luck, seem to think that using the tracker and the overhead of opening bugs would cause load would go up I doubt it would turn out that way; This is almost certainly not the case. If a maintainer gets a notification via a bug filing that some 'Future Feature' change is needed, and there is a pointer in the parent bug as to the 'why' and the approach to modify matters, I have to think that the proposed will get applied next update round, and BY THE MAINTAINER, and the dependent bug closed through the release automation And where there is an impediment -- there was one on the font removal matter 'blasted through' by a PP, and if asked, as in a bug, the maintainer would so indicate, in such a case, probably in the dependent bug. He promptly did so for me, when I asked directly If filing bugs, and mostly having maintainers respond and make changes does not work, why then the Fedoraproject model of self-selecting volunteers maintaining packages is broken, and Red Hat employees (which, if one examines the poster's employer, is who want to 'parachute in' and use PP rights, in the first five cases I checked) should simply do all the commits > The needs of Fedora must win in this case. The predicate was a straw man based on facts not present in this thread --- 'must win' seems to overstate the case. Why then even bother to have process? Let it all hang out and anyone commit as one will. Well, this turns out not to work, as we tried this with release three of the post RHL cAos project, long ago, and got a royal mess with such a lack of process ... > Given your email address, I am going to assume you’re paid > by you’re employer to work on Fedora, and are not working on > Fedora by your own volition. This is the time when your > mentor should step in set some of the ground rules for how > you interact with a community. so, now, an 'ad hominem' attack in rhetoric as well? So much for 'being excellent' to one another -- Russ herrold _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
