| 1 |
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 23:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 17:04 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The gripe in this respect is that we have developers (who don't respond |
| 4 |
> > to emails, friendly or otherwise) that will dump packages into dev-perl, |
| 5 |
> > copy a metadata.xml from another pkg, and leave it as is - and since we |
| 6 |
> > (perl project folks) use a stock metadata.xml listing perl as the herd, |
| 7 |
> > and perl@g.o as maintainer, that means we get stuck with the |
| 8 |
> > package. It sucks because you get bugs for badly written ebuilds and |
| 9 |
> > your only trace of how it got there is either the ChangeLog (if you're |
| 10 |
> > lucky) or the cvs log (had to resort to that once or twice too) - and in |
| 11 |
> > the end, the bugger doesn't care who's package it is, they want it |
| 12 |
> > fixed, and its not their fault for filing a bug, so you grind on and |
| 13 |
> > take care of it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That's the thing. That developer is wrong, and has done something |
| 16 |
> wrong. I see nothing wrong with listing perl as the herd, *only* if |
| 17 |
> they have themselves as the maintainer. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Only with perl consent. The perl herd then gets the responsibility to take |
| 20 |
over if the maintainer leaves, is unavailable, etc. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Not exactly... |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Notice it says that a package is a member of a herd, not a person. A |
| 26 |
> herd can have one or more projects responsible for maintaining the |
| 27 |
> packages in it. In *most* cases, the group of developers responsible |
| 28 |
> for a given herd either have an alias that matches the herd, or are a |
| 29 |
> project with a similar alias. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> > > To make it pretty clear and explicit - bugs gets assigned to |
| 32 |
> > > <maintainer> (if there's any in metadata.xml), and get CCed to <herd> |
| 33 |
> > > (if there's any in metadata.xml). If there's no <maintainer>, whoever |
| 34 |
> > > is in <herd> will get that bug assigned and can happily smack you <> |
| 35 |
> > > once they've find out you've dumped the package on them without their |
| 36 |
> > > knowledge... |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> > he does appear to be correctly quoting the documentation on the site. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> That's where I disagree. His practice is correct. It should be |
| 41 |
> assigned to the maintainers of the herd, if no maintainer is listed, but |
| 42 |
> a herd is *not* a group of developers. It is a group of packages, with |
| 43 |
> developers that maintain that group. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Nowhere did I write (nor was it agreed then) that herd membership should be |
| 46 |
automatic. The bug wranglers seem to be doing the right thing. Assign to |
| 47 |
maintainer, CC the herd email address. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> > And we can't blame the bug wranglers for following this documentation - |
| 51 |
> > we either update it or accept that that's what we have published to date. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> Except that what I am saying is what the documentation says, and also |
| 54 |
> the intention of the documentation, as stated by some of the people who |
| 55 |
> wrote it, back when we had the whole "herds vs. teams" thread. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
The reason there should always be a herd is very simple. People leave, groups |
| 58 |
of people leave less, and can be replenished. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Paul |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 64 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 65 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 66 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives