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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #9295 > unrolled thread

Adopting OpenStack packages

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

Contents

  Adopting OpenStack packages Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2017-02-28 21:50 +0100
    Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-03 14:10 +0100
      Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net> - 2017-03-03 16:10 +0100
        Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-04 04:40 +0100
          Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2017-03-04 05:20 +0100
            Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-05 01:50 +0100
              Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 00:20 +0100
                Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 01:00 +0100
                  Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz> - 2017-03-06 06:40 +0100
                    Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 07:40 +0100
                      Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 09:20 +0100
                    Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Clint Byrum <spamaps@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 16:30 +0100
                      Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-06 16:40 +0100
                        Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 17:00 +0100
                        Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 17:50 +0100
                          Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-06 18:20 +0100
                            Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 21:30 +0100
                              Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-06 22:50 +0100
                                Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz> - 2017-03-06 23:20 +0100
                                  Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-07 23:20 +0100
                                    Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2017-03-08 07:50 +0100
                                      Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2017-03-08 09:20 +0100
                          Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2017-03-08 10:50 +0100
                Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz> - 2017-03-06 06:50 +0100
          Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-04 06:10 +0100
            Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-05 00:50 +0100
              Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-05 01:20 +0100
                Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-05 23:10 +0100
                  Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-06 02:40 +0100
          Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Clint Byrum <clint@fewbar.com> - 2017-03-04 07:10 +0100
            Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2017-03-04 10:50 +0100
              Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-04 16:10 +0100
                Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2017-03-04 21:30 +0100
                  Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-05 01:00 +0100
                    Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2017-03-05 06:40 +0100
                      Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-05 07:20 +0100
                Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-05 01:30 +0100
                  Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-05 01:50 +0100
                    Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-05 23:00 +0100
            Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-05 04:00 +0100
              Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net> - 2017-03-05 18:20 +0100
                Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2017-03-05 21:20 +0100
                  Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-03-05 22:10 +0100
                Re: Adopting OpenStack packages Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2017-03-05 22:50 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#9348 — Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

>> Why debian/unstable, and not debian/sid?
>
> Because "unstable" is what we write in debian/changelog, so that's
> consistent, and also consistent if we upload to experimental. But I'm
> fine either ways anyway, if others would like to use debian/sid because
> it's faster to type.

At the moment - since there were no objections yet - I have revised the
wiki documentation (link already provided) to include DEP-14 and
debian/master (as per DEP-14).
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

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

#9349 — Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 at 17:47:40 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> At the moment - since there were no objections yet - I have revised the
> wiki documentation (link already provided) to include DEP-14 and
> debian/master (as per DEP-14).

I think there's value in using debian/master for the focus of development
rather than arguing debian/master vs. debian/unstable vs. debian/sid,
on the basis that it's essentially an arbitrary choice, and debian/master
is what other packages are already using.

In a thread about moving from a less-widely-used tool-specific git repo
layout (git-dpm) to a layout that is used by a lot of teams and doesn't
even strictly require a particular tool (a gbp-pq-style patches-unapplied
branch), it would seem odd to introduce another DPMT-specific point of
divergence :-)

    S

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

#9351

Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> writes:

> Here's a maybe-stupid idea: use http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep14/ branch
> naming (debian/master, debian/experimental) for that branch, and switch to
> it as the default branch (edit foo.git/HEAD on alioth) when unfreezing
> and "officially" switching to gbp-pq?

One thing we could do right now, for selected packages, is create a
debian/experimental branch, switch to gbp-pq, update to latest upstream,
and upload to experimental. This will not interfere in any way to do
updates to unstable/testing - which still use the master branch, and
similarly won't cause any confusion which branch to use.

These packages that we do this to probably should be excluded from any
post-freeze automatic bulk switch to gbp-pq however. As the procedure is
likely to different (unless there are changes in the master branch, this
probably just involve creating a new debian/master branch from
debian/experimental and deleting the old master branch).

It might pay to have a list somewhere of packages that have already been
converted to gbp-pq, and what branches. Of course it is easy to
autodetect this too, just look for the presence of a debian/.git-dpm
file in that selected branches.

Before doing any automated conversion, we should make the following
checks on the following branches:

* master: exists and has debian/.git-dpm file
* debian/master: this branch should not exist - no DPMT package should
  be using this branch name yet.
* debian/experimental: if this exists it should have a debian/.git-dpm

If any of these checks fails, the respository should be converted
manually. Or it might be an indication that the repository is already in
the required format.

Any other branches are probably not that important for the initial
conversion and can be done manually as required.

Assuming at the moment, that only few packages would require manual
processing, otherwise this may require a rethink.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

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

#9333

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

On 2017-03-06 10:15, Barry Warsaw wrote:

> On Mar 05, 2017, at 01:47 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 
>> Why waiting? The freeze is typically a time of very low activity and low
>> disturbance. That's a perfect moment for doing the switch.
> 
> I think it's generally been the consensus, even outside of this team, that
> doing vcs or other disruptive switches are bad ideas during times of release
> freezes.  For example, upstream CPython recently switched to git + github, but
> while an enormous amount of work went into making that as smooth as possible
> beforehand, the actual switch wasn't done until after the 3.6 release.

More importantly, from my perspective, I am unlikely to be making any
significant changes (in fact maybe no changes) to any of my packages
until after the freeze. So there doesn't seem to be much point in trying
to rush this through, right now. 

After the freeze, some of my packages will no doubt require updating the
the latest upstream version. This will be a good test for gbp pq. 

If people wanted to, now would be a good time to document/implement/test
the procedure for doing the conversion (without actually doing it for
real). 

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

#9309

On March 3, 2017 10:37:16 PM EST, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
...
>4/ Finally, I feel very much unwelcome by the team "leaders" of the
>DPMT
>(of which the "main" person happen to also be that SQLA maintainer
>which
>I prefer not to name). I already have, and will continue to avoid -as
>much as possible- any contribution in the team, since I do fear that
>any
>consequent work that I do will lead to another ban from git write
>access, another round of undeserved public shaming, and a loss of the
>remaining motivation and energy I still have.
> I have a choice, and it's my duty to write these words
>publicly. Hopefully, no flame war will start on these sensitive
>subjects, and this thread will stay on the same single topic...
...

I'm not going to re-litigate this issue, but I don't think it should go unresponded to. If you don't understand why, after repeated warnings, you were temporarily banned from  team repository access, it probably is better that you refrain from contributing to the team.  The rules aren't that complicated.

I don't know about the rest of the mail, but if it's as reasonable as this, then it can be safely ignored.

I think it's hilarious you think you get to write a mail flaming everything and no one else will 'start' a flame war.  Too late.

Scott K

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

#9314

On 03/04/2017 06:03 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> If you don't understand why, after repeated warnings,
> you were temporarily banned from  team repository access,

I understand, but I don't agree. My view is that it went a way too far
and that we all have better things to do than such playground activity.
That's not how I envision team work either.

> it probably is better that you refrain from contributing
> to the team.

Looks like you didn't even care reading what I wrote before replying.
Otherwise you would know that's what I've been doing already, and one of
the reasons I'm not comfortable moving packages to the team.

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

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

#9316

On March 4, 2017 6:41:13 PM EST, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>On 03/04/2017 06:03 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> If you don't understand why, after repeated warnings,
>> you were temporarily banned from  team repository access,
>
>I understand, but I don't agree. My view is that it went a way too far
>and that we all have better things to do than such playground activity.
>That's not how I envision team work either.
>
>> it probably is better that you refrain from contributing
>> to the team.
>
>Looks like you didn't even care reading what I wrote before replying.
>Otherwise you would know that's what I've been doing already, and one
>of
>the reasons I'm not comfortable moving packages to the team.

My preference would be that you constructively contribute to the team.  I can understand your feelings, but I'd ask you to try and set them aside.  

It probably sounds like I'm telling you to go away.  I'm not.

If you can manage to move on from what happened before and work as part of the team, I think we'll all be better off.  Having pkg-openstack be an alternative DPMT isn't a good approach.

For things that aren't used outside openstack, I think it's great to have a focused team.  The other things would be better in DPMT and I don't think you should block that where others want to do it.

Scott K

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

#9328

On 03/05/2017 01:13 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On March 4, 2017 6:41:13 PM EST, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>> On 03/04/2017 06:03 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> If you don't understand why, after repeated warnings,
>>> you were temporarily banned from  team repository access,
>>
>> I understand, but I don't agree. My view is that it went a way too far
>> and that we all have better things to do than such playground activity.
>> That's not how I envision team work either.
>>
>>> it probably is better that you refrain from contributing
>>> to the team.
>>
>> Looks like you didn't even care reading what I wrote before replying.
>> Otherwise you would know that's what I've been doing already, and one
>> of
>> the reasons I'm not comfortable moving packages to the team.
> 
> My preference would be that you constructively contribute to the team.
> I can understand your feelings, but I'd ask you to try and set them aside.  
> 
> It probably sounds like I'm telling you to go away. I'm not.
> 
> If you can manage to move on from what happened before and work as part
> of the team, I think we'll all be better off.  Having pkg-openstack be
> an alternative DPMT isn't a good approach.
> 
> For things that aren't used outside openstack, I think it's great to
> have a focused team.  The other things would be better in DPMT and I 
> don't think you should block that where others want to do it.
> 
> Scott K

Scott,

It feels a way better to read what you just wrote. However, I am now
confused (to say the least), because you wrote one thing and its
complete opposite yesterday and today. From your words:

"it probably is better that you refrain from contributing to the team."

and right now:

"My preference would be that you constructively contribute to the team."

Which of the 2 sentences should I take into account?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

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

#9331

On March 5, 2017 5:09:33 PM EST, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>On 03/05/2017 01:13 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On March 4, 2017 6:41:13 PM EST, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>
>wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2017 06:03 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>> If you don't understand why, after repeated warnings,
>>>> you were temporarily banned from  team repository access,
>>>
>>> I understand, but I don't agree. My view is that it went a way too
>far
>>> and that we all have better things to do than such playground
>activity.
>>> That's not how I envision team work either.
>>>
>>>> it probably is better that you refrain from contributing
>>>> to the team.
>>>
>>> Looks like you didn't even care reading what I wrote before
>replying.
>>> Otherwise you would know that's what I've been doing already, and
>one
>>> of
>>> the reasons I'm not comfortable moving packages to the team.
>> 
>> My preference would be that you constructively contribute to the
>team.
>> I can understand your feelings, but I'd ask you to try and set them
>aside.  
>> 
>> It probably sounds like I'm telling you to go away. I'm not.
>> 
>> If you can manage to move on from what happened before and work as
>part
>> of the team, I think we'll all be better off.  Having pkg-openstack
>be
>> an alternative DPMT isn't a good approach.
>> 
>> For things that aren't used outside openstack, I think it's great to
>> have a focused team.  The other things would be better in DPMT and I 
>> don't think you should block that where others want to do it.
>> 
>> Scott K
>
>Scott,
>
>It feels a way better to read what you just wrote. However, I am now
>confused (to say the least), because you wrote one thing and its
>complete opposite yesterday and today. From your words:
>
>"it probably is better that you refrain from contributing to the team."
>
>and right now:
>
>"My preference would be that you constructively contribute to the
>team."
>
>Which of the 2 sentences should I take into account?

There was a conditional before the first one that you snipped.  Given what you quoted, the latter.

I'm not aware of any complaints since you rejoined the team.  So, to the extent you are contributing (and I really don't keep track), I expect it's been constructive and I'm happy to see it continue and increase.

Scott K

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

#9310

Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2017-03-04 04:37:16 +0100:
> On 03/03/2017 04:09 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On 03/03/2017 08:01 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> Could you please put this on hold? It's possible that I resume my work
> >> on OpenStack packages (though I can't disclose anything on this yet).
> > 
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > I appreciate your preferences, I really do. But the past few months have
> > been a pretty harsh reminder that a bus factor of one is a dangerous
> > place to be. OpenStack isn't the only project that depends on these
> > Python modules, and it's bad for Debian if maintenance drops every time
> > you're between jobs. You need to let go, and let us help you.
> > Maintaining general Python dependencies is what DPMT is here for. I
> > promise we will be mindful of OpenStack's needs.
> > 
> > Allison
> 
> Allison,
> 
> I do appreciate and welcome help. But this would IMO not help. Here's why.
> 
> 1/ The OpenStack team is as much open as the DPMT. Anyone can join. Even
> better, you don't need to join, you can just send patches to Gerrit. And
> any DD/DM can upload. The Gerrit CI/CD is far more advanced than the Git
> on Alioth. Moving back to Alioth is a regression in may ways (safety of
> data, access rights vs gerrit, workflow effectiveness, automated
> testing, etc.). And I'm not even addressing yet the horrible git-dpm
> troubles, how many more years the team is forcibly burying every
> contributor into. Plus Alioth is a security nightmare, and it's loaded
> so much that even a simple git push can take hours (real life experience).
> 

I don't join it because it has not reached critical mass. I do love that
you have built up a really nice set of automation, but I don't like that
it's mostly just you. Maybe now that we have more eyes on it, we can
change that, but meanwhile we can move more generic packages into DPMT
and get an instant critical mass of people who will be responsive to
general packaging needs that keep the release rolling forward.

So even if we keep the OpenStack specific stuff in that workflow, I'd
prefer that generic things be maintained by a larger team.

> 2/ Stretch is frozen, and during the freeze, I continued maintaining and
> closing RC bugs. I will continue to do so. I never wrote I would stop
> caring for Debian packages or Debian in general.
> 
> I wrote I cannot continue maintaining OpenStack on my free time the way
> I did when I was full time, and I did so after seeing that nobody worked
> on the Ocata release. But there's no meaningful RC bugs open right now,
> and there's never been any for more than a few days on all the OpenStack
> packages (ie: Newton release). I don't think it is giving me justice to
> say I stopped caring, and that it caused trouble to Debian, the DPMT, or
> any Python module/app maintainer. It did not (at least so far).
> 

It's very troubling to me because despite all the work you've done, it's
still mostly just you. I know, DPMT doesn't seem as awesome as the
things you and a few others have made. But we _are_ a team, and we
_will_ maintain the things that need maintaining.

> 3/ The history of critical OpenStack dependencies not maintained in the
> team shows the exact opposite thing that you are promising.
> 
> SQLAlchemy and it's half finished transition during the e freeze (1.1.5
> is in Sid and haven't migrated, forcing some not-needed potentially
> hand-crafted dangerous SQLA-related patches in OpenStack Newton for
> Stretch) is a very good example of the maintainer being completely
> careless of both the freeze of Stretch and OpenStack. I raised the topic
> in the release list, the maintainer didn't even care to give meaningful
> answers to valid points of argumentation (unless I raised the issue to a
> tech-ctte bug), nobody seemed to care enough, and I didn't find enough
> energy to fight yet another battle with the maintainer. The only option
> given by the maintainer (ie: fight it through the tech-comittee) would
> have been a waste of time for a lot of people, and probably would have
> drained a lot of my energy at a moment were I didn't had much to spare.
> So I gave up.
> 
> Django maintainers haven't been very careful either, giving weeks
> instead of the needed months for the transition, making Horizon for
> Newton in Stretch very difficult to achieve. The last patch was made
> after the final release, even if both upstream and myself produced
> patches during more than 3 months to achieve the result.
> 
> Nothing makes me believe this will change and maintainers in Debian will
> start caring for OpenStack.
> 

That's for _OpenStack_. We're talking about libraries here. Nobody is
suggesting that DPMT take on Keystone or Horizon.

> Alembic is one piece of the puzzle that may be a source of trouble in
> OpenStack. Having a package inside the umbrella of the OpenStack team
> has the huge advantage to tell the world that package maintainers must
> care. I'm not sure it will continue to be the case if you move packages
> to the DPMT. At the same time, I'm not sure if it will bring you more
> help maintaining these packages anyway (I hope to be proven wrong here).
> 

I care. Allison cares. Barry cares. You care. DPMT cares too. What we
need is trust in each other.

> 4/ Finally, I feel very much unwelcome by the team "leaders" of the DPMT
> (of which the "main" person happen to also be that SQLA maintainer which
> I prefer not to name). I already have, and will continue to avoid -as
> much as possible- any contribution in the team, since I do fear that any
> consequent work that I do will lead to another ban from git write
> access, another round of undeserved public shaming, and a loss of the
> remaining motivation and energy I still have.
> 

One great thing about teams is they have many faces. Talk to me. Talk to
Allison. Talk to others. We're here to make sure things flow smoothly
for OpenStack and Debian, and if you have disagreements and don't want
to fight, I get that. Maybe we can reach consensus through other
channels.

> So, to sum-up, if you move packages to the DPMT, that will be one good
> reason for me to stop contributing to these packages in the future.
> 
> As a conclusion, instead of putting efforts into moving packages from
> one team to another, which will achieve no meaningful result, the
> efforts should be made on the maintenance of packages itself (like
> having the ocata and pike debian repo up and running on OpenStack
> infra). That's IMO a way more productive approach, compared to the -from
> my side of things- destructive way you're trying to push for.
> 
> All this being written, yes, I will let go if you decide to go through
> this path. But IMO, it's not the best option.
> 

It would be great if we could separate libraries from applications. I
know you feel that the whole stack of libraries is the real challenge,
but I'm more interested in making sure Debian users can talk to
OpenStack clouds first, and then if we can achieve it, run OpenStack
too. The release cadence and speed of OpenStack does call into question
the wisdom of this though.

So, let's keep working together. You have people who are ready to
listen and want to help. Take advantage.

> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
> 
> P.S: For many reasons, I would have prefer not having to write some of
> the above, as some of its content is socially sensitive. Unfortunately,
> I don't think I have a choice, and it's my duty to write these words
> publicly. Hopefully, no flame war will start on these sensitive
> subjects, and this thread will stay on the same single topic...

I appreciate your candor.

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

#9311

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

 ❦  3 mars 2017 21:42 -0800, Clint Byrum <clint@fewbar.com> :

> One great thing about teams is they have many faces. Talk to me. Talk to
> Allison. Talk to others. We're here to make sure things flow smoothly
> for OpenStack and Debian, and if you have disagreements and don't want
> to fight, I get that. Maybe we can reach consensus through other
> channels.

Unfortunately, the team usually stays silent (I included) when Piotr
takes some decision. It's not like Zigo was the only one that
accidently uploaded a non-team-owned package. It just happened to be
packages maintained by someone over-protective. I have noticed several
other occurrences for packages that I maintain, I didn't ever bother to
make a mention.

So, the face of the team is Piotr, for better (pybuild) and worse (ban
without a time limit).
-- 
Extreme fear can neither fight nor fly.
		-- William Shakespeare, "The Rape of Lucrece"

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

#9312

On March 4, 2017 4:46:05 AM EST, Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> wrote:
> ❦  3 mars 2017 21:42 -0800, Clint Byrum <clint@fewbar.com> :
>
>> One great thing about teams is they have many faces. Talk to me. Talk
>to
>> Allison. Talk to others. We're here to make sure things flow smoothly
>> for OpenStack and Debian, and if you have disagreements and don't
>want
>> to fight, I get that. Maybe we can reach consensus through other
>> channels.
>
>Unfortunately, the team usually stays silent (I included) when Piotr
>takes some decision. It's not like Zigo was the only one that
>accidently uploaded a non-team-owned package. It just happened to be
>packages maintained by someone over-protective. I have noticed several
>other occurrences for packages that I maintain, I didn't ever bother to
>make a mention.
>
>So, the face of the team is Piotr, for better (pybuild) and worse (ban
>without a time limit).

Piotr consulted other team admins.  He may have been the public face of the decision, but it wasn't his alone.  It was also unique.  I don't recall even considering such a step any other time, before or since.

This was not about isolated mistakes.  We've all made those.  I do not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details.  I do think it is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team it wasn't without limit.

Scott K

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

#9313

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

 ❦  4 mars 2017 15:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> :

> This was not about isolated mistakes.  We've all made those.  I do
> not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details.  I do think it
> is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team it wasn't without
> limit.

He's back in the team because he has asked/begged a TC member to mediate
the issue during last Debconf. The ban has been done privately, so I
don't know if a time limit was provided. In a message, you speak of a
"short break". It was almost a year.
-- 
Repartee is something we think of twenty-four hours too late.
		-- Mark Twain

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

#9315

On Saturday, March 04, 2017 09:23:28 PM Vincent Bernat wrote:
>  ❦  4 mars 2017 15:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> :
> > This was not about isolated mistakes.  We've all made those.  I do
> > not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details.  I do think it
> > is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team it wasn't without
> > limit.
> 
> He's back in the team because he has asked/begged a TC member to mediate
> the issue during last Debconf. The ban has been done privately, so I
> don't know if a time limit was provided. In a message, you speak of a
> "short break". It was almost a year.

I don't recall having said short.  I don't know why I would have said that 
since I didn't remember how long it ended up being.  He's back because the 
team admins were convinced to give him another chance and that he would follow 
the rules if we did.

As I said, we all make mistakes.  That's not what this was, in my opinion, 
about.  It was about him being unable to see beyond what was needed for 
OpenStack and doing that regardless of the way the team works.  I have 
concerns about that going forward based on this thread, but I'm not going to 
prejudge how things work out.

In my opinion, time limits are for children's punishments.  I don't think 
adults need a time out for a lesson.  Bans should only be imposed if you are 
convinced the situation is not salvageable.  That does not mean, however, that 
new information can't make it reasonable to revisit the decision and change it 
as was done here.

I understand why he's leery of DPMT after having been banned, but all he needs 
to do is follow the rules and there's nothing to worry about.

Scott K

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

#9321

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

 ❦  4 mars 2017 23:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> :

>> > This was not about isolated mistakes.  We've all made those.  I do
>> > not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details.  I do think it
>> > is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team it wasn't without
>> > limit.
>> 
>> He's back in the team because he has asked/begged a TC member to mediate
>> the issue during last Debconf. The ban has been done privately, so I
>> don't know if a time limit was provided. In a message, you speak of a
>> "short break". It was almost a year.
>
> I don't recall having said short.  I don't know why I would have said that 
> since I didn't remember how long it ended up being.

You said it here:
 https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2015/09/msg00174.html

I don't say that this should be seen as an official statement. I just
say that this was a clue that the ban should have been relatively short.

> In my opinion, time limits are for children's punishments.  I don't think 
> adults need a time out for a lesson.  Bans should only be imposed if you are 
> convinced the situation is not salvageable.  That does not mean, however, that 
> new information can't make it reasonable to revisit the decision and change it 
> as was done here.

Most punishments have an upper bound (prison sentences have them except
for the most exceptional ones). Maybe people would have protested more
if they knew that the ban was for one year or longer. This is also an
objective metric to be reintegrated in the team.

Even complete strangers to the project have a time limit when they are
banned from the mailing lists. They are not asked to beg. They are not
asked to play extra nice. Just to wait without causing more
trouble.

I am a bit puzzled that you think how the ban was handled is OK. This
won't affect me much as my investment in the team is already quite
minimal.
-- 
Small things make base men proud.
		-- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"

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

#9322

On March 5, 2017 12:33:03 AM EST, Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> wrote:
> ❦  4 mars 2017 23:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> :
>
>>> > This was not about isolated mistakes.  We've all made those.  I do
>>> > not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details.  I do think
>it
>>> > is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team it wasn't
>without
>>> > limit.
>>> 
>>> He's back in the team because he has asked/begged a TC member to
>mediate
>>> the issue during last Debconf. The ban has been done privately, so I
>>> don't know if a time limit was provided. In a message, you speak of
>a
>>> "short break". It was almost a year.
>>
>> I don't recall having said short.  I don't know why I would have said
>that 
>> since I didn't remember how long it ended up being.
>
>You said it here:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2015/09/msg00174.html
>
>I don't say that this should be seen as an official statement. I just
>say that this was a clue that the ban should have been relatively
>short.
>
>> In my opinion, time limits are for children's punishments.  I don't
>think 
>> adults need a time out for a lesson.  Bans should only be imposed if
>you are 
>> convinced the situation is not salvageable.  That does not mean,
>however, that 
>> new information can't make it reasonable to revisit the decision and
>change it 
>> as was done here.
>
>Most punishments have an upper bound (prison sentences have them except
>for the most exceptional ones). Maybe people would have protested more
>if they knew that the ban was for one year or longer. This is also an
>objective metric to be reintegrated in the team.
>
>Even complete strangers to the project have a time limit when they are
>banned from the mailing lists. They are not asked to beg. They are not
>asked to play extra nice. Just to wait without causing more
>trouble.
>
>I am a bit puzzled that you think how the ban was handled is OK. This
>won't affect me much as my investment in the team is already quite
>minimal.

I'm still not aware of any begging, so I don't understand your point.  After having been kicked out for not following the rules, I think it's not unreasonable to expect people to ask to rejoin and agree they'll stick to the rules in the future.  I don't think that's "begging".

I'm sure it could have been handled better, but it's such a rare thing, I don't think it's worth expending a huge amount of effort over deconstructing it.

It's extraordinarily unlikely to affect anyone as it's the kind of thing that virtually never comes up.  Don't get caught by Zigo's FUD about how we ban people at the drop of a hat.  It's not true.

Can we get back to fixing bugs now?

Scott K

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

#9317

On 03/04/2017 04:04 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> This was not about isolated mistakes.
> [...]
> I do not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details.

Though that's what you're doing.

You don't have a reason to do so, while I do (ie: explain why I would
prefer if packages were not moved to the team). And you're here just
proving me right.

> I do think it is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team
> it wasn't without limit.

It's unbelievable to read this. None of the admins accepted to tell what
would be the limit. Vincent explain how I have been re-added. Hopefully,
you're only having difficulties to remember rather than being completely
dishonest here.

Conclusion of this little thread with Scott: I am right to continue to
distrust this team's admins. I would advise anyone who don't know the
team for so long to also be very careful as well.

That's *not* hilarious, and I'm not amused,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

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

#9319

On Sunday, March 05, 2017 01:26:19 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/04/2017 04:04 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > This was not about isolated mistakes.
> > [...]
> > I do not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details.
> 
> Though that's what you're doing.
> 
> You don't have a reason to do so, while I do (ie: explain why I would
> prefer if packages were not moved to the team). And you're here just
> proving me right.
> 
> > I do think it is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team
> > it wasn't without limit.
> 
> It's unbelievable to read this. None of the admins accepted to tell what
> would be the limit. Vincent explain how I have been re-added. Hopefully,
> you're only having difficulties to remember rather than being completely
> dishonest here.
> 
> Conclusion of this little thread with Scott: I am right to continue to
> distrust this team's admins. I would advise anyone who don't know the
> team for so long to also be very careful as well.
> 
> That's *not* hilarious, and I'm not amused,

I wasn't at Debconf, so whatever happened there, I wasn't a part of it.  All I 
know is I was asked to consider re-adding you by one of the other admins and 
we agreed to it.  

As far as the rest, we've never even (that I recall/know of) ever discussed 
banning anyone else.  This is absolutely not something anyone needs to worry 
about and I'd appreciate you knock off the FUD.

Scott K

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

#9327

On 03/05/2017 01:44 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Sunday, March 05, 2017 01:26:19 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 03/04/2017 04:04 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> This was not about isolated mistakes.
>>> [...]
>>> I do not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details.
>>
>> Though that's what you're doing.
>>
>> You don't have a reason to do so, while I do (ie: explain why I would
>> prefer if packages were not moved to the team). And you're here just
>> proving me right.
>>
>>> I do think it is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team
>>> it wasn't without limit.
>>
>> It's unbelievable to read this. None of the admins accepted to tell what
>> would be the limit. Vincent explain how I have been re-added. Hopefully,
>> you're only having difficulties to remember rather than being completely
>> dishonest here.
>>
>> Conclusion of this little thread with Scott: I am right to continue to
>> distrust this team's admins. I would advise anyone who don't know the
>> team for so long to also be very careful as well.
>>
>> That's *not* hilarious, and I'm not amused,
> 
> I wasn't at Debconf, so whatever happened there, I wasn't a part of it.

That's not what I just wrote about. I wrote about the fact that, when
you guys decided to ban me, you - and I mean plural you, the admins -
refused to say for how long.

> All I 
> know is I was asked to consider re-adding you by one of the other admins and 
> we agreed to it.  
> 
> As far as the rest, we've never even (that I recall/know of) ever discussed 
> banning anyone else.  This is absolutely not something anyone needs to worry 
> about and I'd appreciate you knock off the FUD.
> 
> Scott K

If you guys banned me once, in a way that I considered not proportionate
to the miscommunication I did, what assurance do I have that it wont
happen again? I do have the real concern that, if more packages are
moved to the DPMT, I may loose access to them, making it impossible to
package OpenStack in a normal way.

That's no FUD.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

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

#9320

On 03/04/2017 06:42 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> That's for _OpenStack_. We're talking about libraries here. Nobody is
> suggesting that DPMT take on Keystone or Horizon.
> 
>> Alembic is one piece of the puzzle that may be a source of trouble in
>> OpenStack. Having a package inside the umbrella of the OpenStack team
>> has the huge advantage to tell the world that package maintainers must
>> care. I'm not sure it will continue to be the case if you move packages
>> to the DPMT. At the same time, I'm not sure if it will bring you more
>> help maintaining these packages anyway (I hope to be proven wrong here).
> 
> I care. Allison cares. Barry cares. You care. DPMT cares too. What we
> need is trust in each other.

That's exactly the point. I have lost trust. Mostly, trust in the team
leaders. But not only. The trust that SQLAlchemy and Django will be
uploaded carefully without breaking things in the future. And I fear
that if we push packages like Alembic back into the team, careless
uploads will start.

I'm very happy that Allison, you and Barry care. You are all very kind
people that I enjoy a lot interacting with. It'd be awesome if we could
see more of your contribution.

> So, let's keep working together. You have people who are ready to
> listen and want to help. Take advantage.

I hope it will really happen, and that some people really will help.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web