----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbie Harwood" <rharwood(a)redhat.com>
To: "Charalampos Stratakis" <cstratak(a)redhat.com>, "Development
discussions related to Fedora"
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Cc: "Miro Hrončok" <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:30:45 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: Deprecate python-mock (Self-Contained change proposal)
Charalampos Stratakis <cstratak(a)redhat.com> writes:
> Well it seems so. I mean I would get it to an extend if this wasn't a
> *PR*. But anyway yes a two-line diff apparently should be a patch and
> not a sed.
>
> Also according to the PR comments I'm "unwilling" to do that
upstream.
That is not how that word is used - the full comment reads:
Fixed the correct way in d269b84
This is a review of your code. You have submitted code, and I, the
reviewer, have indicated how it could have been improved, and shown how
I would have preferred it by example. This is normal open source stuff.
> - You have not made these changes in a way that is helpful to
the
> ecosystem as a whole
That comment is neither a code review nor an indication of your preferences. Telling me
that this PR doesn't help the ecosystem somehow is not helpful in addressing your
point. I suggest to used a better tone in your wording. Written communication can be
misinterpreted many times, but that's not an excuse for accusing others of ignorance
of your words.
Are you unwilling to submit upstream? I can't say, hence the
conditional. What I can say (since upstream is me) is that you didn't.
> - Once you had to figure out what files needed changed, you
could
> simply have submitted a patch - as is done normally. This would
> have enabled me to apply it upstream if you were unwilling to
> submit it yourself.
You can't say, yet you suggested it. You could always ask me to send a PR upstream
which is the *normal* way of asking things. Also submitting a patch is normal and a sed is
not? If you'd like to keep this technical please refrain from using non-technical
wording then. I've changed PR's to adhere to maintainer's wishes but I always
prefer to have a civilized and not an accusatory discussion over it.
> I don't see how that behavior helps the ecosystem.
So I see it like this:
Our goal is to land changes upstream. This helps for two reasons: not
only is our maintenance burden lowered by not carrying things downstream
in Fedora unnecessarily, but also other users (including other distros!)
get to benefit from our work.
Broadly speaking, upstreams either want PRs on a github/pagure/gitlab
frontend, or patches on a mailing list. In either case, the format
requirements are the same: something they can directly feed into git-am
or git-pull. The more work a downstream maintainer has to do to
upstream something, the less likely they are to do it.
So, if you want a change to help the ecosystem as a whole, upstream
first. Barring that, lowest barrier to upstreaming.
I wholeheartedly agree to that. I still don't think that a 2-3 line change requires a
patch but that's up for debate. If you'd like you can make a case for the Fedora
packaging committee to ban the use of sed in the SPECs. Or you could ask in the PR.
Instead you provide comments like:
> it's just Fedora deviating further from the rest of the
> world, not leading the charge.
I'm sorry but while I can see your point, your way of trying to frame it is really not
an optimal one.
Thanks,
--Robbie
--
Regards,
Charalampos Stratakis
Software Engineer
Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat