Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #15495 > unrolled thread

Suggesting change in DPT policy

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-27 09:10 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> - 2024-02-27 15:30 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-27 19:40 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-28 01:00 +0100
          Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 08:10 +0100
            Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-28 12:50 +0100
              Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 15:40 +0100
          Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-28 13:00 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Jeroen Ploemen <jcfp@debian.org> - 2024-02-29 20:50 +0100
          Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2024-03-01 08:30 +0100
            Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Jeroen Ploemen <jcfp@debian.org> - 2024-03-01 13:10 +0100
              Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2024-03-02 21:40 +0100
                Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-03-02 22:20 +0100
                  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-03-02 23:20 +0100
                    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-03-03 07:20 +0100
                      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-03-03 18:20 +0100
    +1 (Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy) Jochen Sprickerhof <jspricke@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 15:40 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 16:10 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 08:20 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org> - 2024-02-28 09:40 +0100
          Maintaining packages with complex relationships (Was: Suggesting  change in DPT policy) Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 12:00 +0100
            Re: Maintaining packages with complex relationships (Was: Suggesting  change in DPT policy) Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2024-02-28 16:50 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 16:40 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy weepingclown <weepingclown@disroot.org> - 2024-02-27 17:30 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 09:10 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Arto Jantunen <viiru@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 21:30 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 21:40 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 09:30 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-28 15:30 +0100
          Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 15:50 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2024-02-28 03:00 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Agathe Porte <gagath@debian.org> - 2024-02-28 10:30 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2024-02-28 11:50 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Salvo Tomaselli <tiposchi@tiscali.it> - 2024-03-01 01:20 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2024-03-03 00:10 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@yaerobi.com> - 2024-03-03 00:40 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Alexandre Detiste <alexandre.detiste@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 16:20 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org> - 2024-03-09 18:00 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy Anton Gladky <gladk@debian.org> - 2024-03-09 18:50 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2024-03-09 22:30 +0100
          Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-03-19 08:40 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#15495 — Suggesting change in DPT policy

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to
DPMT[1][2].  I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages
from the Blends teams to DPT.  I was happy with this move since it makes
sense.

Recently we received lots of testing removal warnings in those Blends
teams due to RC bugs caused by Cython 3.0 and Python3.12 migrations.  So
I did what I usually do in those teams:  I dedicated quite some time in
team wide bug hunting.  That way I squashed about 50 bugs on packages
where I was not in Uploaders.  When doing so I usually run
routine-update on the package which basically streamlines packaging to
latest standards including calling Janitor tools which are so far
accepted inside DPT.

I probably should have reviewed the DPT policy on Maintainership[3] more
carefully. In other teams, it's common for the Maintainer to be set to
the team, so I assumed it was just an oversight when I made this
change[4] when touching the package to fix RC bug #1058177.  However, I
I was pointed immediately about the fact that I was mistaken according
to the current DPT policy.  I apologize for this.  However, the wording
of the comment on my commit was discouraging, especially considering I
was a volunteer who had fixed a critical bug.  Because of this, I
decided to focus my efforts on fixing other critical bugs for the
moment.  If the comment had started with a 'Thanks for fixing the
critical bug, but...' I likely would have corrected my mistake quickly.
The lack of respect from my teammate simply made me prioritize my time
on other issues that are more visible to our users.  I wonder whether I
should propose another change to the policy about maintaining a kind and
polite language inside the team - but that's a different thing.

While I applied the patch for another RC bug (#1063443) after >2 weeks
which triggered a RC bug in reportbug I remembered the "keep the
maintainer" policy.  But I kept on doing Janitor like changes since
finally the package is maintained in a team where Janitor is accepted.
When doing so I failed the phrase "please contact the Maintainer for the
green light."  I apoligize for this again.  The response was another
volunteer-demotivating private mail (thus no quote) which also was
lacking the "Thanks for fixing"-phrase and degrading my changes as
"frivolous".

So far what happened (seen from my possibly biased perspective).

Why do I like to change the policy?

The current wording provides some means to stop volunteer team members
helping out moving forward to speed up migrations and fix Debian wide
dependencies.  It hides team maintained packages from a common BTS
view.  When pointing my browser to
    https://bugs.debian.org/team+python@tracker.debian.org
I currently see 1339 open bugs (calculated by [UDD1]).  This hides
another 309 [UDD2] bugs (>18% of team bugs) from our sight.  To work
around this flaw I used an UDD query to find relevant Python3.12 bugs.

When I think twice about the wording
   Team in Uploaders is a weak statement of collaboration.[3]
I personally consider it a statement of *no* collaboration (which fits
the wording of the responses I've got).

How can a team member for instance find another RC bug #1009424?  Just
from reading the bug report it is pretty easy to fix but does not
feature any response in BTS.  I came across this while looking into
Cython 3.0 bugs.  The same source package (basemap) that had the open
Cython bug (#1056789, tagged patch since 2023-12-09) is featuring RC bug
(#1009424) that stayed unattended for 22 months?  We all know volunteers
have limited time and I do not want to blame anybody in the team to not
care promptly about RC bugs.  But what else is the sense of a packaging
team than stepping in situations for long standing RC bugs and RC bugs
tagged patch?

This kind of situation wouldn't occur in teams where collaboration is
strong and communication is effective. My motivation to address these
long-ignored critical bugs diminishes when the maintainer opts for
"weak" cooperation and lacks respectful communication with potential
helpers.  I see no difference to simply do a NMU.

I've checked the current situation who is actually using the DPT team as
Uploaders[UDD3].  66 of the 73 maintainers have less than 5 packages
some of these "Maintainers" are other teams and lots of the persons
listed as Maintainer are known to be MIA.  This means the packages are
de-facto not maintained which is most probably an unwanted effect of the
current policy.  I know other maintainers from other teams to be fine
with stronger team understanding.

Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for newcomers
as well as long standing contributors I would like to suggest to drop
this "weak statement of collaboration" option from policy.  I've attached
an according patch to the team policy[5].  I'm fine with creating a MR
to be discussed rather in Salsa than this mailing list - whatever seems
worthwhile to you.

Kind regards
    Andreas.


[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2021/12/msg00051.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2021/12/msg00051.html
[3] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst#maintainership
[4] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/sphinxtesters/-/commit/d8b1083db26c753c8a76dd91b7e91f3ef98c0515
[5] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules


PGPASSWORD="udd-mirror" psql --port=5432 --host=udd-mirror.debian.net --username=udd-mirror udd -c \

[UDD1] select count(*) from bugs b inner join (select distinct source, maintainer FROM sources WHERE maintainer_email = 'team+python@tracker.debian.org') s ON s.source=b.source where status not in ('done');
[UDD2] select count(*) from bugs b inner join (select distinct source, uploaders FROM sources WHERE  uploaders like '%team+python@tracker.debian.org%') s ON s.source=b.source where status not in ('done');
[UDD3] select maintainer, count(*) from sources where uploaders like '%team+python@tracker.debian.org%' and release = 'sid' group by maintainer order by maintainer;

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#15496

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Thomas Goirand wrote:

> On 2/27/24 09:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
>> the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to
>> DPMT[1][2].  I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages
>> from the Blends teams to DPT.  I was happy with this move since it makes
>> sense.
>> 
>> Recently we received lots of testing removal warnings in those Blends
>> teams due to RC bugs caused by Cython 3.0 and Python3.12 migrations.  So
>> I did what I usually do in those teams:  I dedicated quite some time in
>> team wide bug hunting.  That way I squashed about 50 bugs on packages
>> where I was not in Uploaders.  When doing so I usually run
>> routine-update on the package which basically streamlines packaging to
>> latest standards including calling Janitor tools which are so far
>> accepted inside DPT.
>> 
>> I probably should have reviewed the DPT policy on Maintainership[3] more
>> carefully. In other teams, it's common for the Maintainer to be set to
>> the team, so I assumed it was just an oversight when I made this
>> change[4] when touching the package to fix RC bug #1058177.  However, I
>> I was pointed immediately about the fact that I was mistaken according
>> to the current DPT policy.  I apologize for this.  However, the wording
>> of the comment on my commit was discouraging, especially considering I
>> was a volunteer who had fixed a critical bug.  Because of this, I
>> decided to focus my efforts on fixing other critical bugs for the
>> moment.  If the comment had started with a 'Thanks for fixing the
>> critical bug, but...' I likely would have corrected my mistake quickly.
>> The lack of respect from my teammate simply made me prioritize my time
>> on other issues that are more visible to our users.  I wonder whether I
>> should propose another change to the policy about maintaining a kind and
>> polite language inside the team - but that's a different thing.
>> 
>> While I applied the patch for another RC bug (#1063443) after >2 weeks
>> which triggered a RC bug in reportbug I remembered the "keep the
>> maintainer" policy.  But I kept on doing Janitor like changes since
>> finally the package is maintained in a team where Janitor is accepted.
>> When doing so I failed the phrase "please contact the Maintainer for the
>> green light."  I apoligize for this again.  The response was another
>> volunteer-demotivating private mail (thus no quote) which also was
>> lacking the "Thanks for fixing"-phrase and degrading my changes as
>> "frivolous".
>> 
>> So far what happened (seen from my possibly biased perspective).
>> 
>> Why do I like to change the policy?
>> 
>> The current wording provides some means to stop volunteer team members
>> helping out moving forward to speed up migrations and fix Debian wide
>> dependencies.  It hides team maintained packages from a common BTS
>> view.  When pointing my browser to
>>      https://bugs.debian.org/team+python@tracker.debian.org
>> I currently see 1339 open bugs (calculated by [UDD1]).  This hides
>> another 309 [UDD2] bugs (>18% of team bugs) from our sight.  To work
>> around this flaw I used an UDD query to find relevant Python3.12 bugs.
>> 
>> When I think twice about the wording
>>     Team in Uploaders is a weak statement of collaboration.[3]
>> I personally consider it a statement of *no* collaboration (which fits
>> the wording of the responses I've got).
>> 
>> How can a team member for instance find another RC bug #1009424?  Just
>> from reading the bug report it is pretty easy to fix but does not
>> feature any response in BTS.  I came across this while looking into
>> Cython 3.0 bugs.  The same source package (basemap) that had the open
>> Cython bug (#1056789, tagged patch since 2023-12-09) is featuring RC bug
>> (#1009424) that stayed unattended for 22 months?  We all know volunteers
>> have limited time and I do not want to blame anybody in the team to not
>> care promptly about RC bugs.  But what else is the sense of a packaging
>> team than stepping in situations for long standing RC bugs and RC bugs
>> tagged patch?
>> 
>> This kind of situation wouldn't occur in teams where collaboration is
>> strong and communication is effective. My motivation to address these
>> long-ignored critical bugs diminishes when the maintainer opts for
>> "weak" cooperation and lacks respectful communication with potential
>> helpers.  I see no difference to simply do a NMU.
>> 
>> I've checked the current situation who is actually using the DPT team as
>> Uploaders[UDD3].  66 of the 73 maintainers have less than 5 packages
>> some of these "Maintainers" are other teams and lots of the persons
>> listed as Maintainer are known to be MIA.  This means the packages are
>> de-facto not maintained which is most probably an unwanted effect of the
>> current policy.  I know other maintainers from other teams to be fine
>> with stronger team understanding.
>> 
>> Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for newcomers
>> as well as long standing contributors I would like to suggest to drop
>> this "weak statement of collaboration" option from policy.  I've attached
>> an according patch to the team policy[5].  I'm fine with creating a MR
>> to be discussed rather in Salsa than this mailing list - whatever seems
>> worthwhile to you.
>> 
>> Kind regards
>>      Andreas.
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> I had similar experience, and the same kind of demotivating response from the 
> same person. So I'm not surprised.
>
> It's been a long long time that I would have like this DPT policy to go away, 
> but didn't dare to raise the topic. Though indeed, I don't think it's 
> reasonable to have a package in the team, but with strong ownership. I 
> believe that we should either have a package in the team, or not. Period.
>
> If someone isn't happy about this policy change, it's ok to move the package 
> way from the team, if having team-mate working on "your" package isn't ok (of 
> course, we would all prefer this doesn't happen, and that we work 
> collaboratively). This would make things a way clearer.
>
> So I'm 100% with you for the removal of this policy.
>
> To everyone else in the team: please also state your opinion, so we can make 
> a collective decision.

I agree with both of you.  I think packages should be team maintained or 
not at all.  No middle area.

Regards,
Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15502

On February 27, 2024 2:27:35 PM UTC, Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> On 2/27/24 09:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of
>>> the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to
>>> DPMT[1][2].  I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages
>>> from the Blends teams to DPT.  I was happy with this move since it makes
>>> sense.
>>> 
>>> Recently we received lots of testing removal warnings in those Blends
>>> teams due to RC bugs caused by Cython 3.0 and Python3.12 migrations.  So
>>> I did what I usually do in those teams:  I dedicated quite some time in
>>> team wide bug hunting.  That way I squashed about 50 bugs on packages
>>> where I was not in Uploaders.  When doing so I usually run
>>> routine-update on the package which basically streamlines packaging to
>>> latest standards including calling Janitor tools which are so far
>>> accepted inside DPT.
>>> 
>>> I probably should have reviewed the DPT policy on Maintainership[3] more
>>> carefully. In other teams, it's common for the Maintainer to be set to
>>> the team, so I assumed it was just an oversight when I made this
>>> change[4] when touching the package to fix RC bug #1058177.  However, I
>>> I was pointed immediately about the fact that I was mistaken according
>>> to the current DPT policy.  I apologize for this.  However, the wording
>>> of the comment on my commit was discouraging, especially considering I
>>> was a volunteer who had fixed a critical bug.  Because of this, I
>>> decided to focus my efforts on fixing other critical bugs for the
>>> moment.  If the comment had started with a 'Thanks for fixing the
>>> critical bug, but...' I likely would have corrected my mistake quickly.
>>> The lack of respect from my teammate simply made me prioritize my time
>>> on other issues that are more visible to our users.  I wonder whether I
>>> should propose another change to the policy about maintaining a kind and
>>> polite language inside the team - but that's a different thing.
>>> 
>>> While I applied the patch for another RC bug (#1063443) after >2 weeks
>>> which triggered a RC bug in reportbug I remembered the "keep the
>>> maintainer" policy.  But I kept on doing Janitor like changes since
>>> finally the package is maintained in a team where Janitor is accepted.
>>> When doing so I failed the phrase "please contact the Maintainer for the
>>> green light."  I apoligize for this again.  The response was another
>>> volunteer-demotivating private mail (thus no quote) which also was
>>> lacking the "Thanks for fixing"-phrase and degrading my changes as
>>> "frivolous".
>>> 
>>> So far what happened (seen from my possibly biased perspective).
>>> 
>>> Why do I like to change the policy?
>>> 
>>> The current wording provides some means to stop volunteer team members
>>> helping out moving forward to speed up migrations and fix Debian wide
>>> dependencies.  It hides team maintained packages from a common BTS
>>> view.  When pointing my browser to
>>>      https://bugs.debian.org/team+python@tracker.debian.org
>>> I currently see 1339 open bugs (calculated by [UDD1]).  This hides
>>> another 309 [UDD2] bugs (>18% of team bugs) from our sight.  To work
>>> around this flaw I used an UDD query to find relevant Python3.12 bugs.
>>> 
>>> When I think twice about the wording
>>>     Team in Uploaders is a weak statement of collaboration.[3]
>>> I personally consider it a statement of *no* collaboration (which fits
>>> the wording of the responses I've got).
>>> 
>>> How can a team member for instance find another RC bug #1009424?  Just
>>> from reading the bug report it is pretty easy to fix but does not
>>> feature any response in BTS.  I came across this while looking into
>>> Cython 3.0 bugs.  The same source package (basemap) that had the open
>>> Cython bug (#1056789, tagged patch since 2023-12-09) is featuring RC bug
>>> (#1009424) that stayed unattended for 22 months?  We all know volunteers
>>> have limited time and I do not want to blame anybody in the team to not
>>> care promptly about RC bugs.  But what else is the sense of a packaging
>>> team than stepping in situations for long standing RC bugs and RC bugs
>>> tagged patch?
>>> 
>>> This kind of situation wouldn't occur in teams where collaboration is
>>> strong and communication is effective. My motivation to address these
>>> long-ignored critical bugs diminishes when the maintainer opts for
>>> "weak" cooperation and lacks respectful communication with potential
>>> helpers.  I see no difference to simply do a NMU.
>>> 
>>> I've checked the current situation who is actually using the DPT team as
>>> Uploaders[UDD3].  66 of the 73 maintainers have less than 5 packages
>>> some of these "Maintainers" are other teams and lots of the persons
>>> listed as Maintainer are known to be MIA.  This means the packages are
>>> de-facto not maintained which is most probably an unwanted effect of the
>>> current policy.  I know other maintainers from other teams to be fine
>>> with stronger team understanding.
>>> 
>>> Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for newcomers
>>> as well as long standing contributors I would like to suggest to drop
>>> this "weak statement of collaboration" option from policy.  I've attached
>>> an according patch to the team policy[5].  I'm fine with creating a MR
>>> to be discussed rather in Salsa than this mailing list - whatever seems
>>> worthwhile to you.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards
>>>      Andreas.
>> 
>> Hi Andreas,
>> 
>> I had similar experience, and the same kind of demotivating response from the same person. So I'm not surprised.
>> 
>> It's been a long long time that I would have like this DPT policy to go away, but didn't dare to raise the topic. Though indeed, I don't think it's reasonable to have a package in the team, but with strong ownership. I believe that we should either have a package in the team, or not. Period.
>> 
>> If someone isn't happy about this policy change, it's ok to move the package way from the team, if having team-mate working on "your" package isn't ok (of course, we would all prefer this doesn't happen, and that we work collaboratively). This would make things a way clearer.
>> 
>> So I'm 100% with you for the removal of this policy.
>> 
>> To everyone else in the team: please also state your opinion, so we can make a collective decision.
>
>I agree with both of you.  I think packages should be team maintained or not at all.  No middle area.

While I do take advantage of this for a few packages, I don't personally care much either way.  I suspect that packages will be removed from team maintenance as a result though and I think that's a bad idea.

I'd prefer the current approach over people removing packages from the team, so I think it's important that anyone who feels strongly enough about this to do so, speak up.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15506

On February 27, 2024 11:42:33 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>On 2/27/24 19:32, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I suspect that packages will be removed from team maintenance as a result though and I think that's a bad idea.
>
>If a package isn't in the team, any DD can ask for permission from the maintainer before an upload. So, what's the difference, with a package that is "is in the Python team", but nobody from the team can upload without prior approval from the current maintainer? It simply doesn't make sense.
>
>So at the end, if packages get "removed from the team", it's a good thing: it clarifies the situation.
>
>Andreas has been the biggest uploader of packages for many years (by the number of upload per year), and working a lot on Python stuff. It feels wrong we both fell in the "upload not granted: you should have read the team's policy better" mistake, and I do not wish others also receive this kind of demotivating message anymore.
>

It's self-induced.  I mean if it's demotivating to have people point out that you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yourself by following the policy.  If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, all of Debian's rules can be demotivating when people ignore them, so we should get rid of them all so your feelings are safe.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15508

Hi Scott,

Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:54:01PM +0000 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> It's self-induced.  I mean if it's demotivating to have people point out that you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yourself by following the policy.  If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, all of Debian's rules can be demotivating when people ignore them, so we should get rid of them all so your feelings are safe.

I agree that it was my mistake to not follow team policy.  I should not
have done this and I apologized for this.  I should have written this
e-mail first to change a policy that does not fit my experiences in
other teams as well as what obviously several contributors consider
inappropriate.  To solve this I started this discussion and meanwhile
created a MR[1].

The demotivating part was the wording to point me to the policy.  I
addressed this with the words "I wonder whether I should propose another
change to the policy about maintaining a kind and polite language inside
the team - but that's a different thing." in my initial mail[2].

To make sure this will really clear I added the proposed change in a
second MR[3] containing the following diff:


--- a/policy.rst
+++ b/policy.rst
@@ -169,6 +169,16 @@ To be merged, a policy update needs the approval of at least one team
 administrator.
 
 
+Code of Conduct
+===============
+  
+The Debian Python team members agree to the
+`Debian Code of Conduct <https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct>`
+and strive to create a kind and inviting atmosphere among team members.
+We are welcoming newcomers and will be open to questions to get them
+starting.
+
+


Kind regards
    Andreas.

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/20
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2024/02/msg00052.html
[3] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/21

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15516

On February 28, 2024 7:08:14 AM UTC, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
>Hi Scott,
>
>Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:54:01PM +0000 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
>> It's self-induced.  I mean if it's demotivating to have people point out that you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yourself by following the policy.  If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, all of Debian's rules can be demotivating when people ignore them, so we should get rid of them all so your feelings are safe.
>
>I agree that it was my mistake to not follow team policy.  I should not
>have done this and I apologized for this.  I should have written this
>e-mail first to change a policy that does not fit my experiences in
>other teams as well as what obviously several contributors consider
>inappropriate.  To solve this I started this discussion and meanwhile
>created a MR[1].
>
>The demotivating part was the wording to point me to the policy.  I
>addressed this with the words "I wonder whether I should propose another
>change to the policy about maintaining a kind and polite language inside
>the team - but that's a different thing." in my initial mail[2].
>
>To make sure this will really clear I added the proposed change in a
>second MR[3] containing the following diff:

This makes more sense to me.  It is completely understandable that how things are communicated affects how people feel about them.  This is a difficult thing to get right.  I have experienced similar demotivating conversations in Debian myself.

Everyone in Debian is already bound by the code of conduct already, so it seems redundant to add it here again.  While I agree with the principle you are trying to address, I think this change unnecessarily clutters the DPT document and we should not make it.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15520

Hi Scott,

Am Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:44:07AM +0000 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> 
> This makes more sense to me.  It is completely understandable that how things are communicated affects how people feel about them.  This is a difficult thing to get right.  I have experienced similar demotivating conversations in Debian myself.

Seems everybody who has contributed to Debian some time was facing this.
 
> Everyone in Debian is already bound by the code of conduct already, so it seems redundant to add it here again.  While I agree with the principle you are trying to address, I think this change unnecessarily clutters the DPT document and we should not make it.

I have no really strong opinion about this.  I had the cluttering point
in mind when I moved this paragraph right to the end.  I agree that it
is redundant to some extend.  Sometimes saying things repeatedly does
not harm but I would not strongly insist on this change.

Kind regards
   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15517

On February 28, 2024 9:54:55 AM UTC, Thomas Goirand <thomas@goirand.fr> wrote:
>On 2/28/24 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> It's self-induced.  I mean if it's demotivating to have people point out that you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yourself by following the policy.  If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, all of Debian's rules can be demotivating when people ignore them, so we should get rid of them all so your feelings are safe.
>
>The way you're wording it, it feels like we on purpose didn't follow what was written in the policy. That's not the case.
>
>The point you're missing here, is that this policy is not obvious at all, and it's easy to either not understand it, or not know about it.

That seems rather tangential to the question at hand.  In the cases you cited the people in question both knew about and understood the policy.  I agree that I am not really following your logic.  Andreas' explanation makes more sense to me, but it's neither here nor there as you don't need to convince me.

My only concern is that we not cause people to leave the team over this change.  I'm personally ambivalent about it.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15528

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:32:54 +0000
Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:

> While I do take advantage of this for a few packages, I don't
> personally care much either way.  I suspect that packages will be
> removed from team maintenance as a result though and I think that's
> a bad idea.
> 
> I'd prefer the current approach over people removing packages from
> the team, so I think it's important that anyone who feels strongly
> enough about this to do so, speak up.

For me, the weaker collaboration option that the DPT provides is key
to putting my packages under a team umbrella.

As I find myself completely AFK for up to a month at a time for both
work and private reasons, having a knowledgeable bunch of developers
around with full access to my packages (VCS and CI included) is a
definite plus, if only out of a strong sense of responsibility. The
same goes for benefiting from the shared knowledge of the team,
including routine fixes and similar minor changes being rolled out
across all packages in the team.

That said, I'm very careful not to spend more time on volunteer
efforts than I can afford to, and not looking to offload the full
maintenance of any of my packages. Upstream involvement often gives
me advance knowledge of upcoming releases, their compatibility issues
and other quirks, which in turn helps avoid problems on the Debian
end. I do not share the optimism that documenting such details
somewhere in individual packages - as suggested elsewhere in this
thread - would be effective to avoid trouble; more so considering
that the inability to stick to a single, concise, and rather clear
team policy is ultimately what triggered this whole discussion in the
first place.

As for the inclusion of codes of conduct or similar wording,
documenting common sense just feels unnecessary. While being on the
receiving end of a compliment for bug-squashing work is certainly
nice, the lack thereof isn't a measure of disrespect. I cannot recall
any discussion on the team's IRC channel or mailing list crossing
that line.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15530

Hi Jeroen,

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:48:33PM +0100, Jeroen Ploemen wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:32:54 +0000
> Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
> 
> > While I do take advantage of this for a few packages, I don't
> > personally care much either way.  I suspect that packages will be
> > removed from team maintenance as a result though and I think that's
> > a bad idea.
> > 
> > I'd prefer the current approach over people removing packages from
> > the team, so I think it's important that anyone who feels strongly
> > enough about this to do so, speak up.
> 
> For me, the weaker collaboration option that the DPT provides is key
> to putting my packages under a team umbrella.
> 
> As I find myself completely AFK for up to a month at a time for both
> work and private reasons, having a knowledgeable bunch of developers
> around with full access to my packages (VCS and CI included) is a
> definite plus, if only out of a strong sense of responsibility. The
> same goes for benefiting from the shared knowledge of the team,
> including routine fixes and similar minor changes being rolled out
> across all packages in the team.

These are really interesting points.  Under the proposed system, I
presume that one could leave "privately maintained" packages within
the python-team area of salsa and still benefit from these automatic
changes without giving automatic permission to other developers to
make manual changes.  Being part of the team is a relationship between
developers; it surely doesn't say anything about a specific package's
maintenance, just as one can ask questions on debian-devel without
saying "anyone can do anything to my packages without asking me".

> That said, I'm very careful not to spend more time on volunteer
> efforts than I can afford to, and not looking to offload the full
> maintenance of any of my packages. Upstream involvement often gives
> me advance knowledge of upcoming releases, their compatibility issues
> and other quirks, which in turn helps avoid problems on the Debian
> end. I do not share the optimism that documenting such details
> somewhere in individual packages - as suggested elsewhere in this
> thread - would be effective to avoid trouble; more so considering
> that the inability to stick to a single, concise, and rather clear
> team policy is ultimately what triggered this whole discussion in the
> first place.

I don't think it's a binary choice: "offload the full maintenance" of
a package versus "keep the full maintenance".  As far as I understand
it, a package maintained by the team will typically have a main person
who does the day-to-day work on it (few people have the time to start
doing serious work on lots of other packages), but anyone on the team
could work on it.  In the cases mentioned, there are RC bugs in
packages which have not been addressed in a timely fashion and are
holding up transitions or similar.  In some of "my" packages, other
developers on the team have uploaded more regular updates (thanks!).
In most cases, updates are routine and I'm very appreciative of it.

While documenting quirks might not fully avoid trouble, it's much
better than not documenting them.  After all, this is detailed
knowledge of a package or collection of packages that has been gained
over time, and in addition to helping anyone stepping in to do a team
upload, documenting it will help whoever ends up taking over the
package one day (as well as helping the maintainer themselves!).

The question for your quirky packages then becomes: what does the
current team maintenance position offer that having the package solely
maintained by yourself would not provide?  I can see very little;
anyone wanting to help with a package outside of the team can still
offer to do an NMU (and push their changes to salsa).

> As for the inclusion of codes of conduct or similar wording,
> documenting common sense just feels unnecessary. While being on the
> receiving end of a compliment for bug-squashing work is certainly
> nice, the lack thereof isn't a measure of disrespect. I cannot recall
> any discussion on the team's IRC channel or mailing list crossing
> that line.

As far as I understand, this thread was started not because Andreas
did not receive a compliment, but because he received quite unpleasant
emails "telling him off" for doing it.  These were not public
communications, so you would not have seen them.  I don't think anyone
is suggesting that every team upload requires a compliment (though
such things are, of course, nice and appreciated!).

Best wishes,

   Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15531

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 07:21:57 +0000
Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> wrote:

> These are really interesting points.  Under the proposed system, I
> presume that one could leave "privately maintained" packages within
> the python-team area of salsa and still benefit from these automatic
> changes without giving automatic permission to other developers to
> make manual changes.  Being part of the team is a relationship
> between developers; it surely doesn't say anything about a specific
> package's maintenance, just as one can ask questions on
> debian-devel without saying "anyone can do anything to my packages
> without asking me".

As far as I can tell, the proposed change aims to remove that kind of
flexibility: any package that currently lists the team as an uploader
would have to pick between "team as maintainer" or "out" to be in
compliance.

> > That said, I'm very careful not to spend more time on volunteer
> > efforts than I can afford to, and not looking to offload the full
> > maintenance of any of my packages. Upstream involvement often
> > gives me advance knowledge of upcoming releases, their
> > compatibility issues and other quirks, which in turn helps avoid
> > problems on the Debian end. I do not share the optimism that
> > documenting such details somewhere in individual packages - as
> > suggested elsewhere in this thread - would be effective to avoid
> > trouble; more so considering that the inability to stick to a
> > single, concise, and rather clear team policy is ultimately what
> > triggered this whole discussion in the first place.  
> 
> I don't think it's a binary choice: "offload the full maintenance"
> of a package versus "keep the full maintenance".  As far as I
> understand it, a package maintained by the team will typically have
> a main person who does the day-to-day work on it (few people have
> the time to start doing serious work on lots of other packages),
> but anyone on the team could work on it.  In the cases mentioned,
> there are RC bugs in packages which have not been addressed in a
> timely fashion and are holding up transitions or similar.  In some
> of "my" packages, other developers on the team have uploaded more
> regular updates (thanks!). In most cases, updates are routine and
> I'm very appreciative of it.

I should probably have phrased that a bit differently than 'offload'.
My packages simply never have RC bugs open for a long time and under
normal circumstances don't require any team attention/intervention.
Which is exactly why I prefer the "talk to me before making major
changes" approach the current policy provides.

Whatever extra time I have beyond that needed for my own packages
mostly goes towards sponsorship, in part because that makes people
feel their work is appreciated and encourages further contributions.

> While documenting quirks might not fully avoid trouble, it's much
> better than not documenting them.  After all, this is detailed
> knowledge of a package or collection of packages that has been
> gained over time, and in addition to helping anyone stepping in to
> do a team upload, documenting it will help whoever ends up taking
> over the package one day (as well as helping the maintainer
> themselves!).
> 
> The question for your quirky packages then becomes: what does the
> current team maintenance position offer that having the package
> solely maintained by yourself would not provide?  I can see very
> little; anyone wanting to help with a package outside of the team
> can still offer to do an NMU (and push their changes to salsa).

Working directly in git is simply more convenient, lowers the bar for
contributing, and subjects any contributions to the scrutiny of the CI
pipeline. In addition, having team members familiar with python
packages involved lowers risk vs. a drive-by NMU, no matter how well
intended.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15533

Hi Jeroen,

Am Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:48:33PM +0100 schrieb Jeroen Ploemen:
> ...

Julian had sensibly commented on this and had added interesting
questions I'm keen on hearing your answers.

> As for the inclusion of codes of conduct or similar wording,
> documenting common sense just feels unnecessary. While being on the
> receiving end of a compliment for bug-squashing work is certainly
> nice, the lack thereof isn't a measure of disrespect.

Julien also commented on this.  Despite I never thought to spent so much
time on the bug that triggered the discussion I consider it important
enough to clarify some misunderstandings which obviously were caused by
the mails I wrote about this.

As a non-native speaker, I am actively working on improving my
communication skills. I would appreciate it if you could point out which
part of my messages led you to believe that I felt disrespected. My
intention was simply to provide some insight into why the task someone
scheduled for me was not high on my priority list during my spare time.

To summarize the visible facts:

 2023-12-12 serious bug #1058177 was filed, solution for this kind of
            bugs is simple for maintainers comfortable with Python 3.12

 2023-12-22 closed with changelog
    [ Andreas Tille ]
    * Set DPT maintainer
    * Replace SafeConfigParser deprecated in Python3.12
      Closes: #1058177
    * Transparently skip test_bad_pagebuilder instead of ignoring test suite
      errors

  --> I confirm "Set DPT mainter" was in conflict with DPT policy since
      I just forgot about that very detail and considered it some
      unintended oversight.  I will not do this again as long as this
      policy is not changed

 Response in Salsa comment[1]

 Sandro Tosi: @tille please explain why you think this is appropriate

 Andreas Tille: In all teams I know policy says the team address should be put
   as Maintainer. After checking DPT policy again again I realise it gives both
   options with different meanings. Sorry about that and feel free to revert.

 Sandro Tosi: @tille you made the mistake, so you do the reverting and the
   uploading to rectify it.


Comment: That seems fair.  If my real-life boss had asked, I would have
done it, considering he pays me for it.  Fortunately, my day job boss
knows how to motivate me better.  I wouldn't had brought this up on my
own behalf.  I just went into more detail to explain why I did not fixed
my mistake immediately.  As a volunteer, I have the freedom to choose
which tasks to prioritize.  A little kindness in communication can
significantly impact my priorities.  I wasn't expecting a "thank you for
fixing the bug," but I believe it's unrealistic for Sandro to expect me
to follow such commands as a volunteer.  (Fun fact:  I was throwing the
last two paragraphs into a LLM and besides fixing my paragraph several
changes where suggested to Sandro's quote.)


sphinxtesters (0.2.3-4) unstable; urgency=medium

  * Revert attempt by a rogue developer to hijack this package

 -- Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>  Sun, 14 Jan 2024 01:25:23 -0500


I wonder how the attribute 'rogue' is supported by the discussion above,
nor where the intention to hijack the package is inferred from.


sphinxtesters (0.2.3-5) unstable; urgency=medium

  * orphan

 -- Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>  Thu, 29 Feb 2024 01:55:25 -0500


I admit the last upload makes the initial request to revert the
Maintainer change questionable.  I also confirm that I have experienced
worse things before than giving me the attribute "rogue" or blaming
me about bad intentions.  Fine for me I developed some thick skin
meanwhile.

> I cannot recall
> any discussion on the team's IRC channel or mailing list crossing
> that line.

If you cannot recall anything that crossed the line I intended to draw
explicitly in our policy through my MR[2], I am curious to know where,
in your opinion, this falls in relation to our goal of 'striving to
create a kind and inviting atmosphere among team members.'  If it would
be only about me, I would simply move on (which I did until there was
another point of friction with no public traces).  But it does concern
fostering a welcoming team environment. In my view, this crosses the
line, and I am grateful to have been part of teams where such incidents
were not tolerated.

Kind regards
    Andreas.

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/sphinxtesters/-/commit/d8b1083db26c753c8a76dd91b7e91f3ef98c0515#note_450676
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/21

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15535

On March 2, 2024 8:29:47 PM UTC, Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> wrote:
>Hi Jeroen,
>
>Am Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:48:33PM +0100 schrieb Jeroen Ploemen:
>> ...
>
>Julian had sensibly commented on this and had added interesting
>questions I'm keen on hearing your answers.
>
>> As for the inclusion of codes of conduct or similar wording,
>> documenting common sense just feels unnecessary. While being on the
>> receiving end of a compliment for bug-squashing work is certainly
>> nice, the lack thereof isn't a measure of disrespect.
>
>Julien also commented on this.  Despite I never thought to spent so much
>time on the bug that triggered the discussion I consider it important
>enough to clarify some misunderstandings which obviously were caused by
>the mails I wrote about this.
>
>As a non-native speaker, I am actively working on improving my
>communication skills. I would appreciate it if you could point out which
>part of my messages led you to believe that I felt disrespected. My
>intention was simply to provide some insight into why the task someone
>scheduled for me was not high on my priority list during my spare time.
>
>To summarize the visible facts:
>
> 2023-12-12 serious bug #1058177 was filed, solution for this kind of
>            bugs is simple for maintainers comfortable with Python 3.12
>
> 2023-12-22 closed with changelog
>    [ Andreas Tille ]
>    * Set DPT maintainer
>    * Replace SafeConfigParser deprecated in Python3.12
>      Closes: #1058177
>    * Transparently skip test_bad_pagebuilder instead of ignoring test suite
>      errors
>
>  --> I confirm "Set DPT mainter" was in conflict with DPT policy since
>      I just forgot about that very detail and considered it some
>      unintended oversight.  I will not do this again as long as this
>      policy is not changed
>
> Response in Salsa comment[1]
>
> Sandro Tosi: @tille please explain why you think this is appropriate
>
> Andreas Tille: In all teams I know policy says the team address should be put
>   as Maintainer. After checking DPT policy again again I realise it gives both
>   options with different meanings. Sorry about that and feel free to revert.
>
> Sandro Tosi: @tille you made the mistake, so you do the reverting and the
>   uploading to rectify it.
>
>
>Comment: That seems fair.  If my real-life boss had asked, I would have
>done it, considering he pays me for it.  Fortunately, my day job boss
>knows how to motivate me better.  I wouldn't had brought this up on my
>own behalf.  I just went into more detail to explain why I did not fixed
>my mistake immediately.  As a volunteer, I have the freedom to choose
>which tasks to prioritize.  A little kindness in communication can
>significantly impact my priorities.  I wasn't expecting a "thank you for
>fixing the bug," but I believe it's unrealistic for Sandro to expect me
>to follow such commands as a volunteer.  (Fun fact:  I was throwing the
>last two paragraphs into a LLM and besides fixing my paragraph several
>changes where suggested to Sandro's quote.)
>
>
>sphinxtesters (0.2.3-4) unstable; urgency=medium
>
>  * Revert attempt by a rogue developer to hijack this package
>
> -- Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>  Sun, 14 Jan 2024 01:25:23 -0500
>
>
>I wonder how the attribute 'rogue' is supported by the discussion above,
>nor where the intention to hijack the package is inferred from.
>
>
>sphinxtesters (0.2.3-5) unstable; urgency=medium
>
>  * orphan
>
> -- Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>  Thu, 29 Feb 2024 01:55:25 -0500
>
>
>I admit the last upload makes the initial request to revert the
>Maintainer change questionable.  I also confirm that I have experienced
>worse things before than giving me the attribute "rogue" or blaming
>me about bad intentions.  Fine for me I developed some thick skin
>meanwhile.
>
>> I cannot recall
>> any discussion on the team's IRC channel or mailing list crossing
>> that line.
>
>If you cannot recall anything that crossed the line I intended to draw
>explicitly in our policy through my MR[2], I am curious to know where,
>in your opinion, this falls in relation to our goal of 'striving to
>create a kind and inviting atmosphere among team members.'  If it would
>be only about me, I would simply move on (which I did until there was
>another point of friction with no public traces).  But it does concern
>fostering a welcoming team environment. In my view, this crosses the
>line, and I am grateful to have been part of teams where such incidents
>were not tolerated.
>
>Kind regards
>    Andreas.
>
>[1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/sphinxtesters/-/commit/d8b1083db26c753c8a76dd91b7e91f3ef98c0515#note_450676
>[2] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/21
>

It's possible I am misunderstanding you here (languages are hard even when they are your first), but if I am not, I think you are not really seeing things from the correct perspective.  Here's my summary of what I understand your argument to be:

I did not follow the team policy and didn't care about the other people involved to rectify the error.  They were upset about this, so clearly this mess is all their fault.  We should change the rules so that I won't have been wrong.

I absolutely do not know how to respond to that level of entitlement.  Hopefully I have misunderstood what you are trying to communicate?

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15536

Am Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 09:11:52PM +0000 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> 
> It's possible I am misunderstanding you here (languages are hard even when they are your first), but if I am not, I think you are not really seeing things from the correct perspective.

I'm probably biased since involved into this and I'm interested into
other perspectives.

> Here's my summary of what I understand your argument to be:
> 
> I did not follow the team policy and didn't care about the other people involved to rectify the error.

I'm curious why you believe I didn't care. I likely would have reverted
my change if I didn't have more urgent matters to attend to.
Re-uploading a package just to revert the Maintainer and Uploader is
lower on my priority list than fixing other RC bugs. I've mentioned
multiple times that different wording might have elevated the priority.
I'm not sure how to express this more clearly, sorry.

> They were upset about this, so clearly this mess is all their fault.

What exactly is the "mess" in this story.  Probably not swapping
Maintainer+Uploader since I several times confirmed that it is my fault
and immediately said I'm sorry about this.

>  We should change the rules so that I won't have been wrong.

Again no.  My proposal to change policy was after a second upload of
mine connected to

  pysimplesoap (1.16.2-6) unstable; urgency=3Dmedium

I asked the maintainer to post his response to a public mailing list but
he refused.  *Then* I proposed a change to the policy since I see
problems in it.  If we had only the first story I would have done
nothing (except reverting the change the maintainer considered wrong
once I might have time for it.)
 
> I absolutely do not know how to respond to that level of entitlement.  Hopefully I have misunderstood what you are trying to communicate?

I was told that I should not expect any thanks for fixing a bug and I
tried to explain this is not the case.  Now I am being accused of having
a sense of entitlement.  I'm starting to have severe doubt to make
my point clear enough.  My gut feeling tells me that it is time to lean
back and observe this thread passively instead of putting even more
fuel into it.

Kind regards
    Andreas.


-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15541

Hi Christian,

Am Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 11:48:57PM +0100 schrieb Christian Kastner:
> On 2024-03-02 23:11, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I'm curious why you believe I didn't care. I likely would have reverted
> > my change if I didn't have more urgent matters to attend to.
> > Re-uploading a package just to revert the Maintainer and Uploader is
> > lower on my priority list than fixing other RC bugs.
> 
> To add another perspective: what if reverting is not about "fixing" the
> package again, but a courtesy or sign of respect towards the person that
> was upset by this action. Wouldn't that change the priority entirely?

Thanks for pointing this out.  I agree I failed here.  I hope to not
fail the same way in future again since in this very case I can't fix
this any more.
 
The lesson I hopefully learned now is that this kind of failures seems
to put other arguments I gave for a policy change in the shadow at least
for those team members I would love to reach for a constructive
discussion.

Kind regards
   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15543

On March 3, 2024 6:12:09 AM UTC, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
>Hi Christian,
>
>Am Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 11:48:57PM +0100 schrieb Christian Kastner:
>> On 2024-03-02 23:11, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> > I'm curious why you believe I didn't care. I likely would have reverted
>> > my change if I didn't have more urgent matters to attend to.
>> > Re-uploading a package just to revert the Maintainer and Uploader is
>> > lower on my priority list than fixing other RC bugs.
>> 
>> To add another perspective: what if reverting is not about "fixing" the
>> package again, but a courtesy or sign of respect towards the person that
>> was upset by this action. Wouldn't that change the priority entirely?
>
>Thanks for pointing this out.  I agree I failed here.  I hope to not
>fail the same way in future again since in this very case I can't fix
>this any more.
> 
>The lesson I hopefully learned now is that this kind of failures seems
>to put other arguments I gave for a policy change in the shadow at least
>for those team members I would love to reach for a constructive
>discussion.

Thanks both for your response and for Christian for doing a much better job than I managed trying to communicate this.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15497 — +1 (Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> [2024-02-27 15:15]:
>So I'm 100% with you for the removal of this policy.

+1 to everything.

Cheers Jochen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15498

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

* Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> [2024-02-27 09:05]:
>Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for 
>newcomers as well as long standing contributors I would like to 
>suggest to drop this "weak statement of collaboration" option from 
>policy.
+1 from me.

I guess the motivation behind the weak collaboration model is that 
some packages have hidden "gotchas", which a casual team uploader 
might not know. For instance, pygit2 is one of multiple libgit2 
language bindings which all need to be upgraded in lock-step when a 
new upstream version is released.

Instead of restricting collaboration, we could let policy encourage 
maintainers to state such constraints in debian/README.DPT and ask 
team members to check that file before they team-upload.


Cheers
Timo

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   ╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   │ Timo Röhling                                       │
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀   │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1  23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀   ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15509

Hi Timo,

Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:08:51PM +0100 schrieb Timo Röhling:
> I guess the motivation behind the weak collaboration model is that some
> packages have hidden "gotchas", which a casual team uploader might not know.
> For instance, pygit2 is one of multiple libgit2 language bindings which all
> need to be upgraded in lock-step when a new upstream version is released.

You are making an important point here.
 
> Instead of restricting collaboration, we could let policy encourage
> maintainers to state such constraints in debian/README.DPT and ask team
> members to check that file before they team-upload.

I think this is a very good idea.  In case MR[1] will be accepted this
should be added to the policy as well.  I'm not sure whether the
"Maintainership" paragraph is the best place to add this.  I wonder if
you (or someone with the same doubts) might want to suggest another MR
to add this debian/README.DPT feature.

Kind regards
    Andreas.


[1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/20

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15512

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi all,

Andreas Tille, on 2024-02-28:
> Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:08:51PM +0100 schrieb Timo Röhling:
> > I guess the motivation behind the weak collaboration model is that some
> > packages have hidden "gotchas", which a casual team uploader might not know.
> > For instance, pygit2 is one of multiple libgit2 language bindings which all
> > need to be upgraded in lock-step when a new upstream version is released.
> 
> You are making an important point here.

Thanks Timo for raising this point, it is important indeed.

> > Instead of restricting collaboration, we could let policy encourage
> > maintainers to state such constraints in debian/README.DPT and ask team
> > members to check that file before they team-upload.
> 
> I think this is a very good idea.  In case MR[1] will be accepted this
> should be added to the policy as well.  I'm not sure whether the
> "Maintainership" paragraph is the best place to add this.  I wonder if
> you (or someone with the same doubts) might want to suggest another MR
> to add this debian/README.DPT feature.

Policy changes aside, I think it could be useful for the
routine-update command to stop when such file is hit, in order
to raise the importance that the package has quirks, and should
not be casually updated without involved scrutiny.  I wonder
whether this can be generalized, like if d/README.source file is
present?  (Although the latter use is codified[2] and I'm not
confident it is 100% suitable for such purpose: I see many such
files on my radar which do not necessarily hint for quirks.)

Of course this could be overred with a --readme-reviewed flag
once ready to finalize the package with automation for instance.

> [1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/20
[2]: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#source-package-handling-debian-readme-source

Have a nice day,  :)
-- 
  .''`.  Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org>
 : :' :  pgp: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c  8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
 `. `'   sent from /dev/pts/1, please excuse my verbosity
   `-    on air: Dream the Electric Sleep - Utopic

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web