BZ718430 - Unknown Horizons

[Nelson Marques]

Dear all,

Following a previous thread debate about Unknown Horizons:

 1) I'm available to maintain unknown-horizons (UH) in Fedora and EPEL (RHEL6);
 2) For 1) to happen I would like to maintain also FIFE, which doesn't
seem to see much love for quite some time; I ask this because FIFE
flagship product is UH itself and the development of both is very
close... A FIFE release always preceeds a UH release;
 3) If 1) and 2) happen, then I need to maintain also python-enet,
which provides the python bindings for ENet. In case ENet needs some
love, then I don't mind taking it also.

For this to happen, I could use information on the following:

 1) How to check who currently maintains those packages;
 2) The correct 'modus operandi' to take ownership of those packages;

Consider that:

 1) I already provide packages for Fedora and RHEL for at least 1 year
through OBS. This packages are the ones supported by upstream;
Providing them on Fedora means I would remove them from OBS and
replace the current information for Fedora users on UH main website;
 2) I have been sharing jokes and enjoying UH experience with
upstream, so any issues found can properly be addressed to upstream
and a rapid response is expected;
 3) In extreme situations I can take ownership of all dependencies
required (ex: guichan, scons, etc);
 4) I don't know the Fedora way, so I would rather stick with FIFE and
UH at the start and when I'm more confortable I can take ownership of
the rest of the dependencies;

 Is this OK? Should I re-open BZ718430?

 [1] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718430

NM

[Rich Mattes]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nelson Marques <nmo.marques(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
>  Following a previous thread debate about Unknown Horizons:
>
>   1) I'm available to maintain unknown-horizons (UH) in Fedora and EPEL
>  (RHEL6);
>   2) For 1) to happen I would like to maintain also FIFE, which doesn't
>  seem to see much love for quite some time; I ask this because FIFE
>  flagship product is UH itself and the development of both is very
>  close... A FIFE release always preceeds a UH release;
>   3) If 1) and 2) happen, then I need to maintain also python-enet,
>  which provides the python bindings for ENet. In case ENet needs some
>  love, then I don't mind taking it also.
>
>  For this to happen, I could use information on the following:
>
>   1) How to check who currently maintains those packages;
>  
You can use the fedora pkgdb at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb.  To
get into contact with the owners of the packages you can either file bugs
against the packages, or email packagename-owner@fedoraproject dot org.


>   2) The correct 'modus operandi' to take ownership of those
> packages;
>
>  You generally don't "take ownership" of a package that someone else owns
in Fedora, except for when the owner expresses an interest in orphaning the
package and passing ownership along or the owner is non-responsive.  You
can, however, apply to _co-maintain_ the package.  In this case, you gain
rights to commit to the git branch and can submit updates for a package.
 Co-maintainership is up to the discretion of the package owner, you can
apply to co-maintain in the pkgdb (if you are sponsored into the packaging
group,) but you should speak with the package owner first.


>  Consider that:
>
>   1) I already provide packages for Fedora and RHEL for at least 1 year
>  through OBS. This packages are the ones supported by upstream;
>  Providing them on Fedora means I would remove them from OBS and
>  replace the current information for Fedora users on UH main website;
>  
That's nice, but Fedora has a much different workflow, especially if you're
working with other package owners to coordinate dependencies and avoid
breakages in the package collection.


>   2) I have been sharing jokes and enjoying UH experience with
>  upstream, so any issues found can properly be addressed to upstream
>  and a rapid response is expected;
>  
Great!  A good relationship with the project upstream is a plus for reports
and fixes/contributions.


>   3) In extreme situations I can take ownership of all dependencies
>  required (ex: guichan, scons, etc);
>  
This is not necessary.  You can work with the current maintainers if there
are any incompatibilities.


>   4) I don't know the Fedora way, so I would rather stick with
> FIFE and
>  UH at the start and when I'm more confortable I can take ownership of
>  the rest of the dependencies;
>
>  May I suggest: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games

Lurking on the -devel and -packaging lists and/or the fedora-devel IRC
channel are also good things to do if you have the time.

 Is this OK? Should I re-open BZ718430?
>  
You should be ok re-opening your review request and continuing the review.
 You should also reach out to the FIFE maintainer as was suggested in the
previous thread, especially if you want to co-maintain FIFE (and perhaps he
can help you maintain UH as well)

Rich

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:44:01PM -0400, Rich Mattes wrote:
>  On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nelson Marques
> <nmo.marques(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>       1) How to check who currently maintains those packages;
>  
>  
>  You can use the fedora pkgdb at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb.  To get
>  into contact with the owners of the packages you can either file bugs against
>  the packages, or email packagename-owner@fedoraproject dot org.
>    
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/fife
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/enet

PackageDB keeps ownership information per branch (several reasons for this:
the owner may be different between EPEL and Fedora; the owner may want to
orphan a package in Fedora devel but be willing to continue maintaining on
older Fedora releases until they go EOL).

The only difference between an owner and a comaintainer (someone who has all
of the acls on the package) is that the owner is assigned to be the owner in
bugzilla.

>       2) The correct 'modus operandi' to take ownership of
> those packages;
>  
>  
>  You generally don't "take ownership" of a package that someone else owns
> in
>  Fedora, except for when the owner expresses an interest in orphaning the
>  package and passing ownership along or the owner is non-responsive.  You can,
>  however, apply to _co-maintain_ the package.  In this case, you gain rights to
>  commit to the git branch and can submit updates for a package.  
>  Co-maintainership is up to the discretion of the package owner, you can apply
>  to co-maintain in the pkgdb (if you are sponsored into the packaging group,)
>  but you should speak with the package owner first.  
>  
Just one thing to add here.  Comaintainership responsibility can vary
depending on the circumstances.  I have a few packages where a comaintainer
and I talked and he's pretty much doing all the work.  I only work on the
package if there's something time critical or I can contribute a patch to
the code that the comaintainer can't.  Communication is the key to deciding
what each person is going to do.

An additional plus to comaintainership is that FESCo can sponsor you into
the packager group if the package owner is willing to mentor you.  That
allows more people to do package reviews for you.

>       Is this OK? Should I re-open BZ718430?
>  
>   
>  You should be ok re-opening your review request and continuing the review.  You
>  should also reach out to the FIFE maintainer as was suggested in the previous
>  thread, especially if you want to co-maintain FIFE (and perhaps he can help you
>  maintain UH as well)
>   
A hearty +1 to this.

-Toshio

[Nelson Marques]

No dia 27 de Abril de 2012 18:44, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu:
>  On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:44:01PM -0400, Rich Mattes wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nelson Marques <nmo.marques(a)gmail.com&gt;
> wrote:
> >
> >      1) How to check who currently maintains those packages;
> >
> >
> > You can use the fedora pkgdb at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb.  To get
> > into contact with the owners of the packages you can either file bugs against
> > the packages, or email packagename-owner@fedoraproject dot org.
> >
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/fife
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/enet
>
>  PackageDB keeps ownership information per branch (several reasons for this:
>  the owner may be different between EPEL and Fedora; the owner may want to
>  orphan a package in Fedora devel but be willing to continue maintaining on
>  older Fedora releases until they go EOL).
>
>  The only difference between an owner and a comaintainer (someone who has all
>  of the acls on the package) is that the owner is assigned to be the owner in
>  bugzilla.
>
> >      2) The correct 'modus operandi' to take ownership of those packages;
> >
> >
> > You generally don't "take ownership" of a package that someone else
> owns in
> > Fedora, except for when the owner expresses an interest in orphaning the
> > package and passing ownership along or the owner is non-responsive.  You can,
> > however, apply to _co-maintain_ the package.  In this case, you gain rights to
> > commit to the git branch and can submit updates for a package.
> > Co-maintainership is up to the discretion of the package owner, you can apply
> > to co-maintain in the pkgdb (if you are sponsored into the packaging group,)
> > but you should speak with the package owner first.
> >
>  Just one thing to add here.  Comaintainership responsibility can vary
>  depending on the circumstances.  I have a few packages where a comaintainer
>  and I talked and he's pretty much doing all the work.  I only work on the
>  package if there's something time critical or I can contribute a patch to
>  the code that the comaintainer can't.  Communication is the key to deciding
>  what each person is going to do. 


>  An additional plus to comaintainership is that FESCo can sponsor you into
>  the packager group if the package owner is willing to mentor you.  That
>  allows more people to do package reviews for you.
>
> >      Is this OK? Should I re-open BZ718430?
> >
> >
> > You should be ok re-opening your review request and continuing the review.  You
> > should also reach out to the FIFE maintainer as was suggested in the previous
> > thread, especially if you want to co-maintain FIFE (and perhaps he can help you
> > maintain UH as well)
> >
>  A hearty +1 to this. 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757352

Once this has been fixed :)

>  -Toshio
>
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)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...