On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 3:25 AM Alexander Bokovoy <abokovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On ke, 26 huhti 2023, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 9:04 AM Alexander Bokovoy <abokovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This morning I woke up to find that packages I maintain were orphaned
>> out of blue. Nobody contacted the maintainers, nobody raised any tickets
>> to releng, as far as I can see. Yet, releng ran the orphaning from what
>> I saw in a few bugs.
>>
>> What is happening? Who and how made those decisions?
>
>Removing inactive packagers (who have not
>made any package updates, nor responded to
>direct emails, for an extended period are removed
>from the packagers group as part of good
>security hygiene per:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_inactive_packagers/
>
>It is an artifact of that fact that in Fedora, packages
>have only one main admin, and when that packager
>is removed from the packagers group, their packages
>get orphaned (there is no automated promotion,
>and nor should there be, to select one of the other
>maintainers, as that would also imply other
>responsibilities that one might not want). You (or
>other interested packager) can go to:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org
>and "Take" that packager to become the new
>main admin/owner.
My concern is that for packages that have more than one maintainer, no
notification that the packages will be orphaned has happened to them.
Notifying the other maintainers is actually a part of the normal nonresponsive maintainer process (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/#steps, Week 1 step 1). So I think this was probably just an oversight in the drafting of the mass removal process.
This is a pretty bad situation. Take, for example, cifs-utils. It had
six maintainers, including inactive admin at that point. None of the
maintainers except the inactive person received any notification that
the package was going to be orphaned.
I understand the logic behind 'no automated promotion' but the current
logic in the process is effectively not treating existing maintainers as
worth anything.
I see this as a problem with the policy and I am raising this issue as I
believe we should fix the policy.
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Security / Identity Management Engineering
Red Hat Limited, Finland
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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
