> Am 06.10.2021 um 17:04 schrieb Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:27 PM Peter Boy <pboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Am 04.10.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:08 PM Peter Boy <pboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> However, we lack concepts on how to proceed after removing java-maint-sig. What consequences do we draw from the analyses? >>> >>> … If you want >>> to improve docs, just do it. And so on. ... >>> ... or to plan editing the wiki. Whoever wants to clean up some wiki >>> pages can simply do so, without asking. >> >> It’s not as easy as you think of. That way you will end with the docs as Stephen Smoogen described 4 posts back, just chaos and misinformation. You need collaboration and agreement (shared plan) from participants in all affected areas - including you as the (main) developer of a core package (not writing text, but e.g check the concept, check technical correctness and completeness). It simply doesn’t work the way you are proposing. > > Sure, some major changes may indeed require planning or cooperation. > That's what we have the SIG and its communication channels for. For > example, if I wanted to rewrite Java documentation and move it from > the wiki to docs.fedoraproject.org at the same time, I would start > with sending a proposal to java-devel mailing list and ask for > feedback. We would discuss what should and what should not be > documented, who wants to document what and so on. Depending on how the > discussion goes there, I might propose an IRC meeting to ease the > discussion process. Thanks. I will make some suggestions once I get through my current backlog (in about 2 weeks). Of course, I'm also willing to actually write texts then (and keep them up to date). >> You are one of the developers without whose contributions the Fedora Java stack would probably collapse in a short time. I would really be interested in the same question as to Mat: With java-paint-sig removed, are you really completely content with the Fedora Java world? No change? No improvement anywhere? > > I'm happy with how Java SIG works in general - as an informal group > that does not limit packagers freedom, like by enforcing agile > processes, or mandating code review for every change. I like that Java > SIG doesn't have any authority to make any decisions - there can be > discussion, but ultimately each package owner makes decisions > …... > I also promise to document ongoing or planned projects that I am or > would like to be working on. Then anyone interested will be able to > more easily see what is going on, and possibly help with these > projects. Some of the projects that I have in mind: > Ongoing: > - MBI (Maven Bootstrap Initiative, an ability to build Maven and XMvn > fully from source from scratch, without reliance on pre-existing > binaries), > - Maven JDK bindings (ability to choose version of JDK used by Maven > at installation time), > - XMvn toolchains (ability to switch JDK used to build packages by > changing a single line of BuildRequires), > - embedded metadata for security scanners inside JARs (to reduce the > number of false-positives the scanners report), > - downstream patch tracking (similar to Debian DEP-3), > - updating Java packaging docs and moving them to docs.fedoraproject.org. > Planned or considered: > - redesign of auto-requires on JRE packages (bug 1993879), > - adding simple functional tests (smoke tests) for various packages, > - running upstream tests as gating tests (that allows running tests > that can't be ran during rpmbuild due to unpackaged dependencies), > - making use of gating and CI infrastructure to run generic Java tests > (that enforce packaging guidelines and bytecode version), > - browsable API documentation (javadocs extracted from RPMs and served > on a website), > - bringing back java-deptools (search engine for Java classes within > RPM packages that I used to host), > - updating Java Packaging HOWTO (writing missing sections, removing or > rewriting outdated parts). Many thanks for that valuable information! Am very glad (and think it's important) to read here such concrete and constructive perspectives alternatively to the posts that (overly) point out the weak points (which also exist, as in any somewhat more complex project) and that may spread a factually misleading message. >> And just in case you see some preferable improvement anywhere, what do you think should be done to promote and achieve this? > > I have no idea, other than doing the work myself and communicating > what I'm doing and why, hoping others will join the effort. I'm not > the best person to ask about promotion or community building. I hope I can help out here. Peter — Dr. Peter Boy Universität Bremen Mary-Sommerville-Str. 5 28359 Bremen Germany pboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx www.uni-bremen.de ———————————————— Are you looking for a web content management system for scientific research organizations? Have a look at http://www.scientificcms.org _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
