Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

Thu Apr 26 21:08:20 UTC 2012

No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 21:35, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> escreveu:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:49:32PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 19:49, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> escreveu:
>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>> >> BZ718430
>> >>
>> > So reading that with the meat seeming to come from here:
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757352#c5
>> >
>> > it looks like Simon has been working on packaging what you were working on
>> > but hadn't gotten to submitting it for review yet (because he found problems
>> > with licensing that needed to be resolved).  I don't read what he said in
>> > his comment as saying that he did not want you to work on your package....
>>
>> Toshio... a few things:
>>
>>  1) Upstream from UH fixed the licenses a long time ago, it wasn't
>> really a show stopper when I submitted the request. Furthermore, for
>> openSUSE submission I got other issues, such as they were reluctant in
>> accepting guichan on Factory since it hasn't been maintained for 2
>> years. Upstream UH offered themselves to maintain guichan.
>>
>>  2) Chris Mueller, one of the main developers of UH on behalf of the
>> UH Team stated clearly that UH Team was never contacted regarding
>> those issues, else they would be available to fix them. He asked me if
>> I could maintain it for Fedora (in-distro) since Fedora users were
>> asking for it that way. Fedora has quite some expression in Germany
>> and in Europe, and like I've defended before, even that Fedora isn't
>> aimed for traditional end users it has a very strong image in the
>> Linux world and users use it :)
>>
>>  3) What I've learned on openSUSE was that potential packagers should
>> investigate is there's previous work on the package we want to
>> maintain and respect it. That's what I did, he claimed to be working
>> on it, I've backed down. Furthermore, I do maintain Fedora/RHEL
>> packages on OBS for upstream which actually exist. I've tried to step
>> up to easen up for everyone, it didn't worked out.
>>
>> Did I proceeded wrong ?
>>
> Yes.  Although "wrong" is a bit too strong.  There's a misunderstanding
> occurring at step 3 let me include the next snippet from you since that's
> part of the misunderstanding here:
>
>> >
>> > Now... here's what I think the current process is supposed to look like.
>> > Simon's replied to the Fife bug saying that he's done some work on trying to
>> > package UH but maybe doesn't realize that you've already got an attempt at
>> > packaging it under review.  Next comment from you could be:
>>
>> A small thing... Please search for Unknown Horizons on BZ... How was I
>> supposed to know people were working on it ? As far as I can see, my
>> request was the first to land, right ?
>>
> Right.  Your review request was the first to be entered into bugzilla.
> Typically, in Fedora, that means you're well on your way to becoming the
> owner of that package.  Simon had been working on the same package privately
> for a while but he hadn't yet considered his approach to be good enough to
> open a review request.  The fact that he'd been doing that should not in any
> way prevent your package submission from going forward.

Like I said previously, I acted in what I believed to be the best way
according to the practices I had experienced before which seemed good
to me (and still do). If someone has 2 years worth of work on a
package, it's rather sad to override their work, specially when
according to Simons post I believed he wanted to maintain it... I just
backed down from it.

> At the point of the bugzilla bug for updating fife, what typically happens
> in Fedora is that the two packagers become aware that they have both been
> working on the same thing.  One of the packagers is further along in the
> process than the other (in this case, that would be you as you had actually
> opened a package review bug for Unknown Horizons).  The other packager
> offers to help by reviewing the package, become a comaintainer, etc.  The
> time taken to review the package decreases and the resulting package is
> better maintained because there are two people interested in seeing the
> package pass review and enter Fedora.

FIFE wasn't maintained for quite some time when that request was
filed. Not pointing fingers, but from the packages I've maintained on
other waters I've always kept my stuff updated and in the shape
possible.

> So what failed here?  I get the impression from the comments in the fife bug
> and here that you read Simon's comments as a request for you to cease your
> efforts to package Unknown Horizons into Fedora proper (as opposed to via
> OpenBuildService).  I don't get that same impression (possibly because
> I know how this should work/has worked for other Fedora packages in the
> past).  So I'm trying to explain:
>
>  1) That there was no reason for you to stop your efforts at packaging the
>  software for Fedora.

Toshio, I've dropped that package in particular because and moved to
other stuff, I've got a few active reviews going on for EPEL. See it
this way, if it was covered, it's more free time to invest in other
stuff.

>  2) That perhaps, part of the misunderstanding is that Simon didn't realize
>  that you had already submitted Unknown Horizons, or that you had already
>  had the licensing concerns addressed, or that there were ways that he
>  could help get your version of hte package reviewed and into Fedora.

He came to #unknown-horizons, that's when I heard he was working on it
since 2009. That's when upstream told in front of him that they never
were contacted by him in the past... So far up till today and as the
BZ bug report shows the license issue is no longer... And... where's
the packages ? ... Let me guess... on OBS :)

>  3) How to try and coordinate two people who are interested in the same
>  package's efforts so that the software gets into Fedora quicker and with
>  more people who can maintain it into the future.

I don't really have an answer for this unless there's some minimal
project management on Koji like it exists on OBS. The more
sources/means we have to discuss things, the more complicated it
becomes to be effective on communication (thats at least my own
thought).

>>
>> > Hey Simon, I have also attempted packaging for UH and have a review request
>> > open for it here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718430 We've
>> > resolved some of the licensing concerns already but I'm not sure if we found
>> > and addressed the one that you're pointing out.  I'm not a packager yet but
>> > I'd like to be.  Would you be willing to review my package and give feedback
>> > on your current work?  If you're a sponsor or would be willing to mentor me as
>> > a comaintainer of the UH package once it passes review then we could get
>> > a lot more done between the two of us.  Thanks!
>>
>> Toshio, he tried, I've actually done it and my packages are being used
>> by upstream.
>>
> What was tried?  The goal expressed was getting Unknown Horizons packaged
> into Fedora proper.  If I'm reading the review requests correctly, I'm not
> seeing that that goal was achieved (or is in progress).  What I'm trying to
> express is that it seems like working together and packaging this for Fedora
> was abandoned at this point in time over what I think is simply
> miscommunication or a misunderstanding of how Fedora packagers are supposed
> to interact when their packaging interests coincide.

Yeah, and since Simon was working on them since 2009 and the licenses
were no longer an issue I've talked to Chris Mueller from upstream and
informed them I would maintain them on OBS until they entered Fedora,
time at which I would wipe those in OBS. I've updated the packages to
latest releases yesterday night and so far they are not yet in Fedora
from Simons side. So far I've respected my commitment made to
upstream.

>
>> See how cool upstream is... even if I don't follow the
>> project closely I get on my email all the critical fixes required...
>> It's really a waste when we have such a cool upstream and things don't
>> happen.
>>
>> Simon can pretty much use my previous work or my current work on OBS.
>> If he wants I don't mind if he maintains it for Fedora and I maintain
>> on EPEL (I've actually far more interested on EPEL than Fedora since I
>> actually use RHEL on two of my machines).
>>
>> All my current work is available here:
>>
>> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=unknown-horizons&project=games%3Aunknown-horizons
>>
> While this is a great service, this is not as helpful as it could be.  There
> are only a limited number of packagers.  Since you were willing to become
> a Fedora packager, it would be tremendously more helpful if you had
> continued along the path of getting your Unknown Horizons package into
> Fedora.  That way your goal of seeing Unknown Horizons in Fedora proper
> would have been met and we would have had a maintainer that was committed to
> properly maintaing their package.

Sure, it defeats the whole purpose of becoming friendly to users.
Users would feel more confortable and confident if the distro they use
offers the packages for their needs.

I've tried to do the best to honor other people's work and manage my
own time... this to say, one less package to maintain can mean time to
maintain others. I haven't removed any of my EPEL submissions... In
fact I've made more submissions after the WONTFIX on UH.

>
> -Toshio
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-- 
Nelson Marques
// I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
bread in the middle...