Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #8869 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-01 16:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-12-07 12:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 107 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-01 16:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 17:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2016-12-01 18:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-01 19:00 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-01 18:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-01 19:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Sheetal Shalini <sheetalsh456@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 11:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Jérémy Bobbio <lunar@debian.org> - 2016-12-03 21:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2016-12-08 16:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-02 12:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 13:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-02 14:00 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2016-12-02 16:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Iustin Pop <iustin@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 20:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-02 13:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 13:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-02 14:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 16:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 23:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2016-12-03 07:00 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2016-12-03 11:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Sheetal Shalini <sheetalsh456@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 11:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers David Bremner <david@tethera.net> - 2016-12-03 12:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 12:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 18:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 19:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2016-12-05 19:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2016-12-05 20:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 20:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 21:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 23:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-06 05:30 +0100
Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 09:20 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2016-12-06 10:20 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 15:00 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2016-12-06 15:20 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-06 15:20 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 16:00 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2016-12-06 16:10 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 16:20 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2016-12-06 16:30 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 16:50 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2016-12-11 19:50 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 02:30 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-12 02:40 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:00 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-12 03:20 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 14:20 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-12 15:30 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2016-12-12 19:40 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2016-12-12 09:30 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-12 13:50 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-06 16:40 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 18:40 +0100
Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 14:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2016-12-08 16:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at> - 2016-12-09 13:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 02:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-02 16:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-03 11:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-03 18:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-03 23:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 12:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-05 19:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 21:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 23:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-05 23:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 00:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-06 01:00 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 15:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-06 05:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 15:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 15:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2016-12-07 11:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 12:00 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-08 07:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2016-12-08 11:30 +0100
Maintainerless Hive-Mind? (was Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2016-12-08 03:20 +0100
Re: Maintainerless Hive-Mind? (was Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2016-12-09 11:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 15:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 15:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-05 19:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 15:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 16:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 18:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 21:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 23:00 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 21:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-05 22:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 22:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-05 22:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Matthew Woodcraft <matthew@woodcraft.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 23:20 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-10 07:50 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 02:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-16 13:30 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-16 14:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Russell Stuart <russell-debian@stuart.id.au> - 2016-12-07 00:10 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2016-12-07 09:40 +0100
Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 12:00 +0100
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 15:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sLorL-2IR-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8934 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi, Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-12-06 09:36:08) > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > What I currently find inconvenient about the LowThresholdNmu page is, that it > > is external to the source package. So after having found a package I want to > > fix I have to manually look up on that wiki page whether the maintainer is fine > > with NMUs and if it applies to the source package at hand. > > I wouldn't even think of making a NMU without looking at the PTS, and that > page states "LowNMU" right to the maintainer's name. cool! That's really helpful! Can we also have that being displayed in the bts where people are usually coming from if they want to fix a bug? Unfortunately, I don't see where it says LowNMU in the pts. For example if I look at my package multistrap, the string LowNMU occurs nowhere: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/multistrap Thanks! cheers, josch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 15:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sLoL7-39C-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8936 |
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:55:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-12-06 09:36:08) > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > What I currently find inconvenient about the LowThresholdNmu page is, that it > > > is external to the source package. So after having found a package I want to > > > fix I have to manually look up on that wiki page whether the maintainer is fine > > > with NMUs and if it applies to the source package at hand. > > > > I wouldn't even think of making a NMU without looking at the PTS, and that > > page states "LowNMU" right to the maintainer's name. > > cool! That's really helpful! Can we also have that being displayed in the bts > where people are usually coming from if they want to fix a bug? > > Unfortunately, I don't see where it says LowNMU in the pts. For example if I > look at my package multistrap, the string LowNMU occurs nowhere: > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/multistrap I see that https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu lists you as [[JohannesSchauer|Johannes 'josch' Schauer]] while the maintainer field is Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org>, that obviously breaks a string match. Wookey isn't recognized either, the tool might want a space or something. -- u-boot problems can be solved with the help of your old SCSI manuals, the parts that deal with goat termination. You need a black-handled knife, and an appropriate set of candles (number and color matters). Or was it a silver-handled knife? Crap, need to look that up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 15:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sLoL8-39C-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8938 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:08:54PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/multistrap > I see that https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu lists you as > [[JohannesSchauer|Johannes 'josch' Schauer]] while the maintainer field is > Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org>, that obviously breaks a string match. the email on the wiki page is also a different one… -- cheers, Holger
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 16:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sLpnQ-3n6-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8939 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi, Quoting Holger Levsen (2016-12-06 15:15:53) > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:08:54PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/multistrap > > I see that https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu lists you as > > [[JohannesSchauer|Johannes 'josch' Schauer]] while the maintainer field is > > Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org>, that obviously breaks a string match. > > the email on the wiki page is also a different one… maybe whoever implemented or understands the algorithm that is used by the PTS to parse the wiki page should precisely explain the conditions used for the matching in said wiki page? Right now I do not see any way to verify whether an entry in the wiki page is actually properly formatted. The fact that I didn't know that there were consumers like the PTS which expect a certain formatting explains why I didn't take great care when I inserted my name into the list. So maybe the wiki page could also get a list of machine consumers at the top? Actually, this is a great argument for why this information should be in a deb822 field in the source package itself. Thanks! cheers, josch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 16:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sLpxw-3FC-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8941 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:50:12PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Actually, this is a great argument for why this information should be in a > deb822 field in the source package itself. FWIW, I think this is the kind of information that should be kept out of the source package, since changing it would require an upload and that's not going to happen for stable. I'd prefer such information be kept somewhere it's easy to change. -- I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 16:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sLpHb-3IY-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8942 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi, Quoting Lars Wirzenius (2016-12-06 16:06:30) > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:50:12PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Actually, this is a great argument for why this information should be in a > > deb822 field in the source package itself. > > FWIW, I think this is the kind of information that should be kept out > of the source package, since changing it would require an upload and > that's not going to happen for stable. I'd prefer such information be > kept somewhere it's easy to change. why would it be important to change that kind of information for a package in stable? The audience interested in this field is interested in uploads to unstable, so is it not sufficient if the information is up-to-date there? If you want to make a change to stable, then you have to go through the stable release team anyways first. What do you think? cheers, josch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 16:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sLpQR-3Md-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8943 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > why would it be important to change that kind of information for a package in > stable? The audience interested in this field is interested in uploads to > unstable, so is it not sufficient if the information is up-to-date there? For example, there's corner cases that get tricky. A package might only be in stable, but the maintainer wants to declare it as LowThresholdAdoptable. That would require an upload to unstable only to change that bit of metadata. Or Debian might be in a freeze, and uploading a new package version would be frowned upon. It's a lot simpler to keep this metadata outside source package. -- I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 16:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sLqah-3UD-185@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8944 |
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
> For example, there's corner cases that get tricky. A package might
> only be in stable, but the maintainer wants to declare it as
> LowThresholdAdoptable. That would require an upload to unstable only
> to change that bit of metadata. Or Debian might be in a freeze, and
> uploading a new package version would be frowned upon.
>
> It's a lot simpler to keep this metadata outside source package.
I endorse this product and/or service.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 19:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sNhma-2yM-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8946 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:42:57PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > It's a lot simpler to keep this metadata outside source package. > I endorse this product and/or service. Here's one way to quickly build a service like this: - Configure the web server to accept Debian's SSO credentials: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianSingleSignOn#Documentation_for_web_application_owners - Set up a Django site using RemoteUserMiddleware, but trusting SSL_CLIENT_S_DN_CN instead of REMOTE_USER: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.10/howto/auth-remote-user/ (see the CustomHeaderMiddleware example) - Create the model and CRUD pages for the extra info you want to maintain about developers, with ForeignKey to django.contrib.auth.get_user_model() - Export your data with django-rest-framework Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 02:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sNnBf-6mD-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8965 |
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:42:57PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > It's a lot simpler to keep this metadata outside source package.
> > I endorse this product and/or service.
>
> Here's one way to quickly build a service like this:
Great, thanks for the technical tips.
What's needed to make this actually happen ?
I think the initial proposal is simply to move the metadata currently
in Maintainers and Uploaders into a database which is separate from
the archive.
I guess the initial UI would mirror the existing "DD authority"
process.
Who in the project can decide to do this ? I think this is probably
the DPL.
After that, we will probably want to further develop the UI and the
maintainership accession flow.
For example, my suggestion of having a "request to join team" button
but allowing any DD to add themselves as a Maintainer of a
solo-maintained package. Presumably there would have to be a way for
the MIA team to mark someone as "maintainer emeritus" (ie, used to be
a maintainer).
Who would make these UI decisions ?
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 02:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sNnKV-6pJ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8967 |
On December 11, 2016 8:25:05 PM EST, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership
>in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:42:57PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > > It's a lot simpler to keep this metadata outside source package.
>> > I endorse this product and/or service.
>>
>> Here's one way to quickly build a service like this:
>
>Great, thanks for the technical tips.
>
>What's needed to make this actually happen ?
>
>I think the initial proposal is simply to move the metadata currently
>in Maintainers and Uploaders into a database which is separate from
>the archive.
>
>I guess the initial UI would mirror the existing "DD authority"
>process.
>
>Who in the project can decide to do this ? I think this is probably
>the DPL.
>
>After that, we will probably want to further develop the UI and the
>maintainership accession flow.
>
>For example, my suggestion of having a "request to join team" button
>but allowing any DD to add themselves as a Maintainer of a
>solo-maintained package. Presumably there would have to be a way for
>the MIA team to mark someone as "maintainer emeritus" (ie, used to be
>a maintainer).
>
>Who would make these UI decisions ?
These changes will require, at the very least, policy changes. We have a process for that.
Unless this thing is somehow opt-in only, be prepared for a GR overriding it.
Scott K
P. S. In case you wonder how maintainerless works, go look at the dusty corners of the Ubuntu archive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 03:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sNo4i-6w8-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8970 |
Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
> These changes will require, at the very least, policy changes. We
> have a process for that.
>
> Unless this thing is somehow opt-in only, be prepared for a GR overriding it.
It might be best to do it via a GR anyway.
> P. S. In case you wonder how maintainerless works, go look at the dusty corners of the Ubuntu archive.
I'm not in favour of abolishing amintainership.
You don't explicitly say so but I get the impression from your mail
that you think what I am suggesting is a bad idea. I've read your
other messages in this thread and they have significantly influenced
my thinking. So perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 03:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sNonE-6Rt-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8971 |
On December 11, 2016 8:50:19 PM EST, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package
>ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose
>maintainers)"):
>> These changes will require, at the very least, policy changes. We
>> have a process for that.
>>
>> Unless this thing is somehow opt-in only, be prepared for a GR
>overriding it.
>
>It might be best to do it via a GR anyway.
>
>> P. S. In case you wonder how maintainerless works, go look at the
>dusty corners of the Ubuntu archive.
>
>I'm not in favour of abolishing amintainership.
>
>You don't explicitly say so but I get the impression from your mail
>that you think what I am suggesting is a bad idea. I've read your
>other messages in this thread and they have significantly influenced
>my thinking. So perhaps I have misunderstood you.
You may not think you are, but I believe that is the net effect.
If anyone can unilaterally add themselves as maintainer (to pick one proposal as an example) and make intrusive package changes (since they are a maintainer), there's really no maintainer at all.
Being maintainer means having responsibility for a package. If anyone can add themselves as maintainer, then you've turned being maintainer into a position with responsibility, but no authority. That's a recipe for disaster.
I confess to a difficulty keeping all the threads straight, so this might not be one of your proposals at all.
I do sense a general trend of the conversation towards the idea of undermining package maintainership. Push to hard in that direction and you get revert wars and even larger chunks of the archive left to rot.
I think there are plenty of DDs who would find having their ability to control their packages taken away demotivating. I don't see a crowd of new contributors just waiting to not have to deal with a maintainer to get involved in Debian development.
Running off or demotivating the people we have isn't a great way to make a better operating system.
Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 14:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sNyGm-4Q4-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8972 |
Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
> If anyone can unilaterally add themselves as maintainer (to pick one
> proposal as an example) and make intrusive package changes (since
> they are a maintainer), there's really no maintainer at all.
I was suggesting this only for the situtation where there is only one
maintainer.
> I do sense a general trend of the conversation towards the idea of
> undermining package maintainership. Push to hard in that direction
> and you get revert wars and even larger chunks of the archive left
> to rot.
I think we have a problem that a few maintainers are unresponsive to
external corrective input, or uncommunicative (except to block). I
don't think our systems for dealing with such situations are any good.
It mostly seems to involve having a conversation (necessarily) full of
personal attacks, on the TC list.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 15:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sNzM6-5s8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8975 |
On Monday, December 12, 2016 01:16:49 PM Ian Jackson wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in
source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
> > If anyone can unilaterally add themselves as maintainer (to pick one
> > proposal as an example) and make intrusive package changes (since
> > they are a maintainer), there's really no maintainer at all.
>
> I was suggesting this only for the situtation where there is only one
> maintainer.
I know, but once it's one, then it will be two, because reasons.
> > I do sense a general trend of the conversation towards the idea of
> > undermining package maintainership. Push to hard in that direction
> > and you get revert wars and even larger chunks of the archive left
> > to rot.
>
> I think we have a problem that a few maintainers are unresponsive to
> external corrective input, or uncommunicative (except to block). I
> don't think our systems for dealing with such situations are any good.
> It mostly seems to involve having a conversation (necessarily) full of
> personal attacks, on the TC list.
I agree the current system isn't working, but I think if you optimize for
these relatively rare hard cases, you'll do more harm than good.
In line with some other recent comments (I think on this list, I lose track),
I think if the TC were a bit more aggressive about requiring people with
issues they want the TC to address to put them in neutral technical terms
(the U.S. legal parallel would be roughly case dismissed for failure to make a
justiciable claim [1]) before they will consider them, the existing process
could work in a less painful way.
It would also help if third parties kept their rants to a minimum.
Scott K
[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justiciable
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sNCqB-75R-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8976 |
Philip Hands writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
> Until now I've tended to be irritated by the way courts do that, but
> suddenly I have more of an understanding of why they do ;-)
>
> Having someone that is familiar with court processes on the TC might
> help. I don't know if any of the current batch have a legal background.
While I'm a successful litigant, but I have no formal training.
But you can see a lot from reading judgements.
> I wonder how long it would be before people start acting as advocates to
> guide others though our increasingly arcane rules -- that might actually
> work quite well though. Perhaps we'd have a better process if someone
> not involved in the dispute acted as champion for each party, so that
> even timid folk could be confident that the person they were dealing
> with was on their side.
That might well help.
> > It would also help if third parties kept their rants to a minimum.
>
> I'm not sure what sanction we could enforce for contempt of TC ;-)
The TC ought to be able to block someone from posting to its mailing
list (and to bugs in the TC's purview).
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) |
| Message-ID | <sNCqB-75R-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8976 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
> On Monday, December 12, 2016 01:16:49 PM Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in
> source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
>> > If anyone can unilaterally add themselves as maintainer (to pick one
>> > proposal as an example) and make intrusive package changes (since
>> > they are a maintainer), there's really no maintainer at all.
>>
>> I was suggesting this only for the situtation where there is only one
>> maintainer.
>
> I know, but once it's one, then it will be two, because reasons.
>
>> > I do sense a general trend of the conversation towards the idea of
>> > undermining package maintainership. Push to hard in that direction
>> > and you get revert wars and even larger chunks of the archive left
>> > to rot.
>>
>> I think we have a problem that a few maintainers are unresponsive to
>> external corrective input, or uncommunicative (except to block). I
>> don't think our systems for dealing with such situations are any good.
>> It mostly seems to involve having a conversation (necessarily) full of
>> personal attacks, on the TC list.
>
> I agree the current system isn't working, but I think if you optimize for
> these relatively rare hard cases, you'll do more harm than good.
I have to agree: my thought on this was that hard cases make bad law.
The thing that comes to mind from my experience would be the request to
enable ssh -c none (which turns off crypto, giving better speed in
exchange for exposing private key material to the net, and only meant
for testing).
Some people were _very_ keen on this idea indeed. The related bug
(#13389) doesn't really give the full impression.
Of course times are quite different, and it would be a very brave person
who would now try to unilaterally join debian-ssh and upload a patched
package, but I imagine there are other security sensitive packages being
quietly and carefully maintained by someone that doesn't realise that
they're giving a public impression of inactivity.
> In line with some other recent comments (I think on this list, I lose track),
> I think if the TC were a bit more aggressive about requiring people with
> issues they want the TC to address to put them in neutral technical terms
> (the U.S. legal parallel would be roughly case dismissed for failure to make a
> justiciable claim [1]) before they will consider them, the existing process
> could work in a less painful way.
Until now I've tended to be irritated by the way courts do that, but
suddenly I have more of an understanding of why they do ;-)
Having someone that is familiar with court processes on the TC might
help. I don't know if any of the current batch have a legal background.
I wonder how long it would be before people start acting as advocates to
guide others though our increasingly arcane rules -- that might actually
work quite well though. Perhaps we'd have a better process if someone
not involved in the dispute acted as champion for each party, so that
even timid folk could be confident that the person they were dealing
with was on their side.
> It would also help if third parties kept their rants to a minimum.
I'm not sure what sanction we could enforce for contempt of TC ;-)
Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 19:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages |
| Message-ID | <sNDG2-7LQ-41@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8978 |
Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes: > Until now I've tended to be irritated by the way courts do that, but > suddenly I have more of an understanding of why they do ;-) > Having someone that is familiar with court processes on the TC might > help. I don't know if any of the current batch have a legal background. > I wonder how long it would be before people start acting as advocates to > guide others though our increasingly arcane rules -- that might actually > work quite well though. Perhaps we'd have a better process if someone > not involved in the dispute acted as champion for each party, so that > even timid folk could be confident that the person they were dealing > with was on their side. This is not a fully-thought-out idea, but reading this, it occured to me to wonder if we're erring here in going farther down the path of legal process, which inherently emphasizes the grievanace and personal responsibility aspects of the problem. A lot of the problems that come before the TC strike me more as project management problems than legal problems, in that the question isn't about liability and harm so much as it's about technical and procedural approach and about tradeoffs between several possible good approaches. The TC is quite competent to make judgement calls on the relative importance of several different possible technical outcomes, but that doesn't necessarily help if the maintainer still disagrees with their call and isn't happy with letting their judgement be overridden. (I have a talk I gave at work on the emotional and personal motivations of free software work that I should reproduce in some more public forum.) But treating this as legal action puts hard emphasis on rights and responsibilities and other such things that I think tends to make this all more fraught. In a workplace, this sort of thing is usually sorted out by a project manager instead, who talks to the various stakeholders, tries to build consensus for some general approach forward, puts timelines on it, and then holds people accountable to those timelines. This is always trickier to do with volunteer work, where you can't really enforce any timeline, but the overall strategy feels better to me. Project managers come with the base assumption that this is not an adversarial process, everyone is trying to produce the best outcome, but there are both resource and direction conflicts that have to be resolved somehow. Project management in general is a huge gap in the free software world, and I think we're no exception. It's easy to underestimate the power of a good project manager unless you've worked with one. Quite a lot of this process feels to me like it would benefit hugely from a project manager, including the perpetual complaint that the TC is too slow, which is one of the core things that project management can help with just by keeping the eye on the specific actions that have to be taken to move things along. And we should strive to emulate processes that have the properties we feel we're missing, so if more timely action is a goal, emulating legal process (which is notorious for interminable delays) may not be a good idea. One of the roles of project managers everywhere is to guide people and projects through whatever process is used by the larger organization. If there's anyone out there reading this with project management experience who has been wondering what they could volunteer to do to help Debian immensely.... -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 09:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages |
| Message-ID | <sNu9H-1Zw-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8970 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
❦ 12 décembre 2016 01:38 GMT, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> :
> P. S. In case you wonder how maintainerless works, go look at the
> dusty corners of the Ubuntu archive.
Ubuntu get packages even when nobody ever cared about them. In our case,
for each package, we have at least one person who cared about the
package at some point.
--
Keep it simple to make it faster.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 13:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages |
| Message-ID | <sNydk-4lY-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #8973 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Monday, December 12, 2016 09:23:35 AM Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 12 décembre 2016 01:38 GMT, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> : > > P. S. In case you wonder how maintainerless works, go look at the > > dusty corners of the Ubuntu archive. > > Ubuntu get packages even when nobody ever cared about them. In our case, > for each package, we have at least one person who cared about the > package at some point. True, but there are plenty with ubuntu in the revision string that indicate that at least at some point someone cared about them in Ubuntu, so it's not limited to those. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web