On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:21:27AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 26. 01. 23 4:51, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-01-24 at 15:55 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following > > > packages > > > should be retired from Fedora 38 approximately one week before branching. > > > > > > 5 weekly reminders are required, hence the retirement will happen > > > approximately in 2 weeks, i.e. around 2023-02-08. > > > Since this is unfortunately after the branching, > > > packages will be retired on rawhide and f38. > > > > > > Policy: > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ > > > > Why isn't automatic orphaning at the beginning of this countdown part of this > > policy, so that others have the chance to take and fix the package? If > > someone (other than the maintainer, who should already be well aware) were to > > just now notice that one of these packages were about to be retired, there > > isn't really enough time to go through the BZ route to get it orphaned first. > > That is a good question. > > The original idea is that FTBFS packages are orphaned when the maintainers > don't respond to the FTBFS bugzillas. But many do set the bugzillas to > ASSIGNED to avoid the orphaning or sometimes the FTBFS bugzillas are closed > in mistake or not opened at all. Well, if it's ASSIGNED, you don't want to orphan it, the maintainer is working on it right? > I suppose orphaning the packages first would make perfect sense, but the > devil is in the details. I suppose packagers might feel bad if suddenly > "their" packages are orphaned without any reminder or warning of some sort. Yeah, I think that would be quite bad. > So we would need to modify the policy from: > > 1. warn > 2. warn > 3. warn > 4. warn > 5. warn > 6. retire > > To something like: > > 1. warn > 2. warn > 3. warn > 4. orphan > 5. warn > 6. warn > 7. warn > 8. retire > > And make the process much longer. And we would need to figure out what to do > if the package is taken (unorphaned) in between 4. and 8. without being > fixed. I suppose FTBFS is less urgent and FTI bugs... perhaps they should be different in this process? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
