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 D399A1381F3 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:51:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B4C7E0B08; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:50:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85B0DE0B05 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from grubbs.orbis-terrarum.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B065433E6CA for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6254 invoked by uid 10000); 21 Jun 2013 18:50:54 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:50:54 +0000 From: "Robin H. Johnson" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Soliciting input for a non-maintainer update (NMU) GLEP Message-ID: 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 2ec1fe7f-0621-4c43-bbcd-1bb393f11428 X-Archives-Hash: 604102ed1392afd3bfe35bfb33da8796 Hi all, >From what I've read on the list recently, there's a lot of demand for non-maintainer updates to ebuilds. Esp. with the upcoming Git migration, I predict there will be a much larger influx of changes from users. Some developers (eg myself) have a general policy [2] that we send out to the list occasionally welcome everybody to touch our packages (so long as they own their breakages). A few packages discouraged touching due to fragility, but mostly we were a very open society. Back in the days of "The Old Ones", this was a general practice for all developers, but somewhere along the line, some developers seem to have grown territorial of their ebuilds. Debian has their own NMU process: http://wiki.debian.org/NonMaintainerUpload http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu With a long whitelist of devs/teams that welcome it: http://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu So I'd like to hear input on how developers & users (esp proxy-maintainers) on maybe writing a NMU GLEP. I'm open to all input, but here's some initial questions I'd like to hear your answers to: - How should developers, herds & teams communicate how welcome they are to NMU changes on their packages? - to humans? - to automated scripts? - where? metadata.xml? - What sorts of changes (see Debian NMU): - Are welcome? - Are prohibited? - Are somewhere between the two? - Does this need to be controlled per-package? - What about upstream-rejected changes? - How do we encourage responsible ownership of changes that cause breakage? [1] 1. I've been leading infra for a few years now, and I've got a few ground rules, maybe we can run with parts of those: - If you break something, own up ASAP; there will be no punishment, just help in getting it fixed. - You're responsible for many people's systems/access/privacy, don't abuse it. (Ciaranm: since you were talking about lack of honesty of corporate cultures in response to my previous mail, here's your chance again). 2. This isn't entirely selfless, I want to have to tell people less that they can go and touch most of my packages WITHOUT asking me or waiting for me to reply to a bug. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85