On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 04:49:32PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 03:15:11PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > [...] > > I'm a little surprised by Peter's email that he also has little > insight into why this was done. But I have no reason to believe one > person over another in this. I'll just say I've found Peter to be a > very helpful and trusted packager in the past. > > > The problem with proven packager, and I have had it with my > > packages, see note above about a rust SIG member and from other > > people in this thread, is everyone wants things done done > > differently, has their own preferred way of doing things, emails, > > RHBZ, pull requests, etc, some are ignored, some sit for months > > without action, others have outlined this in the thread as well. If > > there was a way where people put a readme or something with details > > I believe it would remove a LOT of the friction. [snip] > I do think we need a bit less ownership and a bit more shared > responsibility with packaging. For packages which I maintain, I'm > happy for PPs to touch them without getting permission beforehand. > Just try to do the right thing! Yes, the notion of "ownership" is what gives rise to the situation Peter describes above "everyone ...has their own preferred way of doing things", that PP have to be aware of to avoid conflict. We should consider Fedora packagers "custodians" rather than "owners". Fedora owns the package, maintainers are looking after it on behalf of Fedora. By all means have personal preferences, but if someone is following documented Fedora procedures that should be considered fine, even if it doesn't align with personal preferences. I myself have a preference that we put changes to libvirt spec upstream first, but ultimately Fedora trumps that preference. So if a PP comes along and merges a change downstream only, its my job to reconcile that upstream. That's ok. My preference simplifies my life 95% of the time, and lets PP still do their job downstream when important. Looking at our guidance https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/ It is very non-specific "Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to communicate with owners of a package in bugzilla, dist-git pull requests, IRC, matrix, or email." This is sooo vague & open to interpretation I can easily see how differences of opinion can arise from this. If you send an email, how long do you have to wait for a response ? If you don't get an email response do you have to open a bugzilla too, or is lack of email response enough to allow you to go ahead ? If 1 communication attempt is not sufficient, is two different attempts sufficient, or do they have to try all 5 methods of communication listed ? Combine that with "personal preferences" and it is surprising there are not more conflicts seen. Having flexibility is good considering the kinds of things proven packages may need to do. At the same time though, IMHO this proven packagers policy would benefit from documenting a default preferred pathway as *sufficient* to satisfy the "common case" scenarios. This would give clarity for both proven packagers and the individual maintainers seeing the PP actions. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ 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
