From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19B51381F3 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 547BAE0B05; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:20:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from spot.xmw.de (spot.xmw.de [176.9.87.236]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F328E0AE7 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:20:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:6f8:1cd1:0:21d:72ff:fe88:9ac1] (x.l.xmw.de [IPv6:2001:6f8:1cd1:0:21d:72ff:fe88:9ac1]) by spot.xmw.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 337EC14401177 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:20:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51C57A66.70801@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:20:22 +0200 From: Michael Weber User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130610 Thunderbird/17.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Soliciting input for a non-maintainer update (NMU) GLEP References: <201306212017.38571.vapier@gentoo.org> <201306212106.31519.vapier@gentoo.org> <51C567F8.6070503@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <51C567F8.6070503@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 49a80202-f781-4fdc-9e53-56232fea9435 X-Archives-Hash: bb704f20d853e0564ad1d86eeb2c6bc0 On 06/22/2013 11:01 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 06/22/2013 03:42 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:06:30PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Friday 21 June 2013 20:26:03 Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 08:17:38PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>>>> I'm not going into review systems here at all, I'm simply trying to >>>>>> have a policy of what changes are welcomed/blocked WITHOUT interaction >>>>>> from the listed maintainer(s) of a given package/herd. >>>>> >>>>> add a new field to metadata.xml that declares the state. make it an enum: >>>>> ANYTHING_GOES (the default) should reflect the circle of entities to do the change ... ANYBODY? Just to not confuse it with an type of change. >>>>> REQUIRES_HERD >>>>> REQUIRES_MAINTAINER >>>> >> So we have: >> Who = {ANYTHING_GOES, REQUIRES_DEV, REQUIRES_HERD, REQUIRES_MAINTAINER} >> What = {NONE, TRIVIAL, MINOR_FEATURES, VERSION_BUMP, MAJOR_FEATURES} >> >> So most of my packages might be coded with: >> >> >> >> - If you're a developer, you can do trivial fixes, add minor features, >> bump the version. >> - If you're in the herd, you can add major features. >> > > Sounds cool. > > I don't think we need a GLEP or council vote on that. ack. But in every single metadata? Can I get a script for my 160 personal edits, pls? And what's a sane default? Let's take a amount to time (~2month) for responsive people to mark their preferences and default to EVERTHING_GOES/ANYBODY. And we lost the timeout dimension. An "Feel free to bump my stuff" override in devaway works for single maintained packages, how to interpret these data for teams and multiple maints? AWOL people... Bottom line: I think we need more of a culture of mutual trust than a ton of metadata. - Respect the right of an maintainer to take a few days until responding (except QA, security, major skrew ups), - Honor the effort other people put into packages you don't care to much. - Take a look at the package/ebuild complexity to estimate the maintainers affection. - Ask for an second opinion aka peer-review. (And yes I've failed at every single point at least once). -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber