Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation procedure

[Alice Ferrazzi]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 11:47:35PM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 11/22/2016 12:06 AM, Alice Ferrazzi wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:55:09AM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2016 01:07 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:05:41PM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> >>>>> Isn't it implied that any stabilisation is approved by the maintainer?
> >>>>> Has it ever been acceptable to go around stabilising random packages?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Explicit > Implicit when we're updating things anyways.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are scenarios where e.g Security is calling for stabilization ,
> >>>> I'll add some info to the draft security GLEP with some requirements for
> >>>> when this can happen without maintainer involvement as well..
> >>>>
> >>>> Ultimately maintainer is responsible for the state of the stable tree
> >>>> for the packages they maintain and should be taking proactive steps for
> >>>> this also for security bugs, it doesn't "always" happen like that.....
> >>>
> >>> The interaction of this proposal and the prior discussion of allow
> >>> maintainers to document the maintenance policy of given packages is
> >>> where it would really come into play.
> >>>
> >>> Using two packages for examples:
> >>> app-admin/diradm: I am the upstream author as well as the package
> >>> maintainer. I care about it being marked stable. I'd prefer the normal
> >>> policy of other people asking me (with timeout) before touching it.
> >>>
> >>> app-admin/cancd: It's a very obscure package that I put in the tree
> >>> because I needed it, but I haven't personally used it in many years.
> >>> I fix the packaging if it's broken only.
> >>> I'm inclined to mark it with 'anybody-may-bump/fix/stabilize'.
> >>>
> >> Agreed. For most of my packages, I really don't mind since we're all
> >> working on Gentoo together, but it'd be super helpful if I was simply
> >> notified in the event that a package I maintain has gotten a security
> >> bump, patch, or stabilization. Sure, 'git log' and 'git blame' can
> >> explain a few things, but if I was going to edit a package, I have the
> >> maintainer's e-mail available right there in metadata.xml. To me it's a
> >> courtesy that should be a requirement by default, while devs that don't
> >> care can use whatever means we agree upon to indicate that they don't care.
> >>
> >> This creates a "contact first" practice, which it seems we want to
> >> encourage. If someone isn't responsive and/or away, that complicates
> >> things, but if it's a security concern or the last blocker in a big
> >> stabilization effort (looking at you, tcl 8.6...), then it makes sense
> >> to just go ahead and make the bumps necessary.
> >
> > What about maintainers that are away without writing it in their
> > maintainer bug ?
> > After how many days of no replay can be fair to touch their package ?
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
> >> OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
> >> fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> We have a formal dev-away practice, requiring little more than literally:
>
> ssh me@××××××××××.org; echo "Away for vacation. Back in a week" >
> ~/.away; exit
>
> A dev can add more details to the file if they want to. If they're gone
> and can't be reached at all, then I think a week is enough time for a
> developer to check their mail and get (or make) enough time to either
> update their dev-away status or otherwise indicate how they feel about a
> change that needs their feedback.
>
> Maybe the maintainer-bug case is different if we're talking
> proxy-maintainers, but that's a good question; one that maybe p-m should
> make on its own before we aim for a global, concrete policy.

yes, i was talking about maintainer-bug and not about dev-away practice.
The Maintainer Bug is referred here:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers/Maintainer_Bugs_and_Maintainership_Requests#Maintainer_Bug

>
> I think the requirement for contact is all we should really settle on
> formally; the rest being handled in wetware where it belongs. :)

sure keeping in contact can be good but not in all case always plausible.

> --
> Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
> OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
> fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
>