On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 12:54:58PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Regardless of different opinions about aggressiveness, having policies > and no enforcement makes no sense. Either the polices are too > aggressive and we need to change them, or they are not and we need to > enforce them. That seems like a rather poor way to think about policy in general, and I have some disagreements with it in this specific case as well. In general, you're not considering that it may be worth having policies reflect our *ideal* situation, and acknowledge that they don't always fit the real world precisely. I think that's a thing we need to consider, because both the mass rebuild policy, and the crusade you're on to use it to drive your use of the FTBFS policy. In both cases the intent of the policy is clearly good, but the way you're trying to handle enforcement has aggravated quite a few people - I think I've witnessed at least 3 people tell you this in general, and two of us have (more than once) about this specific case. > What you seem to ask is to stop enforcing policies, and I must > disagree with that. I don't think this is in any way a reasonable conclusion *or* a reasonable response. Nobody said "we should never enforce any policies", or even anything you might reasonably confuse for that. There aren't very many things that are good "one size fits all" policies with something as complex as a linux distro, and those are mostly very, very core things, like "the stuff in your package has got to be open source". Most things, we can only make the policy fit everything so well, and try to make it fit better when we can, and enforce it to the appropriate extent. But instead, you're talking about policy enforcement as if we should send people to jail if they accidentally drop a candy wrapper when they're putting it in their pocket to throw away later. > Note that IMHO it's mostly Red Hat employees that are "forced" to fix their > packages by enforcing the polcies, not community members. The community > packagers either care about their packages and they fix them in timely > manner, or they are already gone. But I have no data to back this up, so > feel free to disagree there. The insinuation that Red Hat employees, including me, don't care about what we're working on is pretty seriously insulting. > > > Also said in the e-mail, if you think those packages need to be > > > exempted from the process, we can deal with that to, however there > > > must be a valid reason. I don't think "the maintainer didn't > > > actually maintain their Fedora packages for almost 2 years because > > > they have real stuff to do" is a valid reason, yet other FESCo > > > members might disagree with that statement. > > > > Well the FTB from people pushing builds would be directly due to the > > fact they're not on the ACL for the secure-boot, there is a handful > > of packages like that. > > So the people who has the rights should start actually doing it, > shouldn't they. Again with the insulting insinuations. Have you at all considered that *not* rebuilding a package might be the correct action? Have you considered that when I say not to include shim-unsigned-aarch64, shim-unsigned-x64, and shim in the mass rebuilds, since that will not and *can not* ever produce the desired result, and in fact can *only* result in more work that's *completely pointless*, I'm actually not just being hopelessly lazy? > This particular maintainer ignores all bugzilla e-mail. You appear to believe bugzilla is a good way to have any conversation with any maintainer. It isn't. It's an archive for reporting bugs, and treating it as a notification queue won't ever be a good interaction for everyone. >From my perspective, you are abusing bugzilla in an overzealous attempt to enforce a policy that you hold as absolute, but which does not fit the situation at hand well *at all*, and mostly just generates extra work *on top of* the noise the mass rebuild generated, and you're insulting people when they tell you that. Please stop. > > Well FESCo might agree that they want booting x86 images with > > secure-boot so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > Sure, let's build our policies around that. What about the following: > > "If you maintain a critpath package, you don't need to to do anything, > because it will never be removed so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" I realize Peter was sarcastic in his response to you, but replying with *ridicule* when others disagree with you is not respectful or considerate, which are the two main requirements of Fedora's code of conduct. If you want to talk even more about the actual details of what the plan going forward for these two packages (really three, but whatever) is, and try to understand why I want you to stop, we can. You don't seem to want to, though. -- Peter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
