1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 10.05.2017 kell 13:17, kirjutas Michael Jones: |
2 |
> From a non-gentoo developer who seriously looked at joining the |
3 |
> community over the last few years as a new developer, this entire |
4 |
> conversation thread is absurd, and is a wonderful example of why I |
5 |
> decided to not bother. |
6 |
|
7 |
I agree that it's absurd to even have to have such a thread. But here |
8 |
we are. |
9 |
|
10 |
> If you don't want people to edit the field such that it's usable with |
11 |
> the official package manager of the distribution, then change the |
12 |
> formatting rules for the field! |
13 |
|
14 |
The formatting rules are in place and well documented. |
15 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Stable_request |
16 |
It is clearly not meant for being passed directly to the package |
17 |
manager, when the action will just error due to no relevant keywords |
18 |
yet (you know, what the bug is about), and because it can optionally |
19 |
list a restriction of arches for which a given line is meant for. |
20 |
|
21 |
There is also a fully working parser that generates a proper chunk of |
22 |
text out of it for a given arch (doing all the filtering to list only |
23 |
the packages meant for that arch, guaranteeing = prefix while keeping |
24 |
it on the bug more readable, etc) at |
25 |
https://github.com/kensington/bugbot/blob/master/getatoms.py which |
26 |
everyone else uses to great success, except one single person who |
27 |
insists the format is something else than it is and spams us all with |
28 |
changed that have to get reviewed or reverted by the maintainer (while |
29 |
that change is not meant to happen in the first place after |
30 |
architectures are CCed without going through maintainer) instead of |
31 |
simply adjusting his own alternative scripts. |
32 |
|
33 |
> If you don't want people editing a field, then change the software |
34 |
> such that groups who aren't allowed to edit the field aren't even |
35 |
> capable of editing it! |
36 |
|
37 |
It is getting wrongly edited by a person who is a developer and |
38 |
maintains packages of their own and theoretically should be able to |
39 |
edit it for his own maintained packages STABLEREQ and KEYWORDREQ bugs, |
40 |
and as a developer has editbugs privileges on bugzilla. |
41 |
|
42 |
> Either officially document the expected formatting and permissions, |
43 |
> or put automated enforcement rules into place. Throwing accusations |
44 |
> of wrongdoing around simply because the action in question generates |
45 |
> an email is, again, absurd. |
46 |
|
47 |
The formatting is well documented. The permissions are just like they |
48 |
have always been, and I'm pretty sure this is covered by even the |
49 |
recruitment quizzes. |
50 |
|
51 |
We are not in a position to have the time to teach bugzilla about what |
52 |
developer maintains what, and what bug is about what package, to be |
53 |
able to restrict this on a case by case basis. |
54 |
Having to do that just because a single person doesn't play along is an |
55 |
absurd requirement. |
56 |
|
57 |
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand |
58 |
> <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
59 |
> > On 05/10/2017 05:33 PM, David Seifert wrote: |
60 |
> > > On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 18:22 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
61 |
> > > He doesn't stop: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=617694 |
62 |
> > > Please drop editbugs privileges for some time. Everyone agrees |
63 |
> > that |
64 |
> > > this maintainer-specific metadata is not to be touched. |
65 |
> > > |
66 |
> > |
67 |
> > I've actually spent some time looking into this and haven't |
68 |
> > actually |
69 |
> > found any authoritative documentation that makes it maintainer- |
70 |
> > specific, |
71 |
> > so I welcome some references to documentation that it is. |
72 |
|
73 |
I'm sorry that you can't find something written down that is extremely |
74 |
common sense, and has always been like this. |
75 |
Do you remember a non-maintainer going and attaching a new |
76 |
stabilization list to a stabilization bug? Do you remember a non- |
77 |
maintainer overriding a stabilization list given in a bug comment in a |
78 |
way that architecture teams would actually consider this as what is to |
79 |
be used, when manual finding of the correct list was needed from |
80 |
comments? |
81 |
|
82 |
This is nothing different, it's just easier to find and parse via |
83 |
scripts. |
84 |
Stabilization and keywording lists are the responsibility of the |
85 |
relevant maintainers, not that of a single architecture. An |
86 |
architecture team member may do something extra on their own |
87 |
responsibility, but not change the list for all the other |
88 |
architectures. Or force a re-review by the maintainers because you have |
89 |
a different idea than everyone else (including the feature author) what |
90 |
is correct format to have in it, or think some extra package is needed |
91 |
without consulting the relevant maintainers and just add it to an |
92 |
already ongoing stabilization bug (which gets handled by scripts by |
93 |
others without noticing this change was done without authorization). |
94 |
|
95 |
Something being easier (downloading previous attachment, changing it |
96 |
and re-attaching is harder) doesn't mean the rules suddenly changed. |
97 |
|
98 |
|
99 |
> > There is the bug wrangler project page, but that is project- |
100 |
> > specific and |
101 |
> > not global. |
102 |
|
103 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Stable_request has been mentioned before |
104 |
and discussed enough. I also wrote this thread before as a reminder, |
105 |
which everyone agreed to, except the one person that is stubborn and |
106 |
has different ideas. Because of that, someone ELSE has to do the work |
107 |
to stop one persons misguided stubbornness to break the workflow for |
108 |
everyone else. Sorry, but that is not OK. |
109 |
|
110 |
This new field and so on is an actual effort towards a better workflow. |
111 |
The thing the working group you are leading was supposed to analyze and |
112 |
come up with. This field is getting abused by a developer. I first |
113 |
kindly asked to stop it, but it hasn't, so I ask for some sort of |
114 |
action towards avoiding this field meant to help being made useless due |
115 |
to unauthorized edits. |
116 |
|
117 |
> > Although it is certainly a good practice that maintainer acks |
118 |
> > stabilizations; other projects routinely files stabilization |
119 |
> > requests, |
120 |
> > in particular the security project. |
121 |
|
122 |
And the security project doesn't change the stabilization list after it |
123 |
has been ACKed by maintainer via CC'ing architecture teams, unlike what |
124 |
we are talking about here. They usually don't even fill the |
125 |
stabilization package list. |
126 |
It is not a good practice to get an ACK for stabilization. It is a soft |
127 |
requirement, unless maintainer timeout happens. |
128 |
https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-maintenance/index.html#stabilizing-ebuilds |
129 |
"The maintainer of the package should always be contacted just in case |
130 |
there are reasons not to do so.", etc |