Re: [gentoo-project] Council: Policy for Systemd units

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1699 bytes --]

Dnia 2013-06-12, o godz. 18:16:10
Alexander V Vershilov <qnikst@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On 12 June 2013 17:59, Rich Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Honestly, right now what I'd advocate for systemd unit maintainers is to:
> > 1.  File a bug with the maintainer with a patch asking for the unit to
> > be added, and indicating that if there is no response in 7 days it
> > will be commited.
> > 2.  If the maintainer doesn't commit it themselves, then commit it for
> > them in 7 days.
> 
> It will be good if commiter will add himself/or systemd team to metadata with
> description that unit bugs will be should be assigned to him. As it will add a
> level of responsibility for commiter, as he should realize that if
> current maintainer is
> unable or unwilling to test this part of functionality.

I don't understand why do we need to treat systemd special here.

If package fails on Prefix, bugs are usually assigned to Prefix
directly. If package fails due to bug in another package, sometimes
even bug wranglers CC relevant people to help maintainer settling on
where the problem lies.

Now, why does every package supposedly need systemd@ as co-maintainer?
I don't think it's usually hard to see that a particular bug report is
relevant to systemd and reassign/CC. Even bug wranglers can CC systemd
if anything related to systemd is involved.

The major point of teams like systemd@g.o is to *help*, and supervise
for a consistent user experience. We are practically involved in
anything related to systemd units and I don't think there needs to be
a special <maintainer/> tag to get us CC-ed.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]