| 1 |
Greetings, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:14:27 +0000 (UTC) NP-Hardass wrote: |
| 4 |
> With the ongoing discussion about the state of both the sunrise and proxy- |
| 5 |
> maintainer, I thought it appropriate to bring up an issue that I've |
| 6 |
> encountered with the proxy-maintainer system, and would like to propose a |
| 7 |
> solution to it at the same time. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The current workflow (of which I am content with), is that bugs should be |
| 10 |
> assigned to the proxy maintainer, so that they are responsible to fixing |
| 11 |
> issues with the package (and it's ebuilds). Unfortunately, this has an |
| 12 |
> unintended consequence that if a proxy maintainer times out (goes AWOL), the |
| 13 |
> bugs in bugzilla sit, assigned to someone who is unlikely to respond at all. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> To counter this, I'd like to propose a heartbeat system, whereby a master |
| 16 |
> list of users involved in proxy-maintenance is kept. On a regular basis, an |
| 17 |
> email is sent to the user, confirming their status as an active proxy- |
| 18 |
> maintainer. Failure to do so within some reasonable period of time results |
| 19 |
> in the user being dropped as a proxy maintainer, and all bugs that were |
| 20 |
> assigned to said user are reassigned. The reassignment could be to any |
| 21 |
> number of targets, depending on how flexible we'd want the system to be. |
| 22 |
> They could all be assigned to a target for timed-out packages, they could be |
| 23 |
> assigned to their original herds, etc. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Would appreciate any thoughts on the matter. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Thanks in advance. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I assume you mean a proxied maintainer (a user maintaining a |
| 30 |
package via a proxy), not a proxy maintainer (a developer proxying |
| 31 |
packages for users). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If we'll have a per-maintainer ping (e.g. one ping for each |
| 34 |
maintainer regardless number and state of maintained packages), |
| 35 |
then we'll end up in a situation, where maintainer is active, but |
| 36 |
maintains only a subset of assigned packages. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
If we'll ping each proxied maintainer on per-package level, this |
| 39 |
will be too irritating (at least from my perspective I'll burn that |
| 40 |
with fire). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I see no better alternative to ping-before-takeover. Though as you |
| 43 |
should remember from openafs experience, this takes time (which is |
| 44 |
also irritating). But we almost never know why someone is |
| 45 |
unavailable, so it will be impolite to kick people if they are |
| 46 |
out of reach for a month or two. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Best regards, |
| 49 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives