----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robbie Harwood" <rharwood@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Charalampos Stratakis" <cstratak@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Development discussions related to Fedora" > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Miro Hrončok" <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:30:45 PM > Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: Deprecate python-mock (Self-Contained change proposal) > > Charalampos Stratakis <cstratak@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Well it seems so. I mean I would get it to an extend if this wasn't a > > *PR*. But anyway yes a two-line diff apparently should be a patch and > > not a sed. > > > > Also according to the PR comments I'm "unwilling" to do that upstream. > > That is not how that word is used - the full comment reads: > > > > Fixed the correct way in d269b84 > > This is a review of your code. You have submitted code, and I, the > reviewer, have indicated how it could have been improved, and shown how > I would have preferred it by example. This is normal open source stuff. > >> - You have not made these changes in a way that is helpful to the >> ecosystem as a whole That comment is neither a code review nor an indication of your preferences. Telling me that this PR doesn't help the ecosystem somehow is not helpful in addressing your point. I suggest to used a better tone in your wording. Written communication can be misinterpreted many times, but that's not an excuse for accusing others of ignorance of your words. > Are you unwilling to submit upstream? I can't say, hence the > conditional. What I can say (since upstream is me) is that you didn't. > >> - Once you had to figure out what files needed changed, you could >> simply have submitted a patch - as is done normally. This would >> have enabled me to apply it upstream if you were unwilling to >> submit it yourself. You can't say, yet you suggested it. You could always ask me to send a PR upstream which is the *normal* way of asking things. Also submitting a patch is normal and a sed is not? If you'd like to keep this technical please refrain from using non-technical wording then. I've changed PR's to adhere to maintainer's wishes but I always prefer to have a civilized and not an accusatory discussion over it. > > I don't see how that behavior helps the ecosystem. > > So I see it like this: > > Our goal is to land changes upstream. This helps for two reasons: not > only is our maintenance burden lowered by not carrying things downstream > in Fedora unnecessarily, but also other users (including other distros!) > get to benefit from our work. > > Broadly speaking, upstreams either want PRs on a github/pagure/gitlab > frontend, or patches on a mailing list. In either case, the format > requirements are the same: something they can directly feed into git-am > or git-pull. The more work a downstream maintainer has to do to > upstream something, the less likely they are to do it. > > So, if you want a change to help the ecosystem as a whole, upstream > first. Barring that, lowest barrier to upstreaming. I wholeheartedly agree to that. I still don't think that a 2-3 line change requires a patch but that's up for debate. If you'd like you can make a case for the Fedora packaging committee to ban the use of sed in the SPECs. Or you could ask in the PR. Instead you provide comments like: >> it's just Fedora deviating further from the rest of the >> world, not leading the charge. I'm sorry but while I can see your point, your way of trying to frame it is really not an optimal one. > > Thanks, > --Robbie > -- Regards, Charalampos Stratakis Software Engineer Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat _______________________________________________ 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
