From this weeks report:
* _blah_> "i've requested a few packages from fedora maintainers that have not gotten back to me... what is the next step in getting those packages into epel?"; knurd mailed the Fedora list about this;
Find the mail attached. Is that fine for everyone? If yes I'd say we make this policy in this weeks meeting.
CU thl
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 17:29 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
From this weeks report:
- _blah_> "i've requested a few packages from fedora maintainers that
have not gotten back to me... what is the next step in getting those packages into epel?"; knurd mailed the Fedora list about this;
Find the mail attached. Is that fine for everyone? If yes I'd say we make this policy in this weeks meeting.
it looks good to me. i massaged the wording a bit, below.
thanks for putting this together; it is needed.
rob.
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL he should first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to participate in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer can request the branch directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as well.
If it's unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package participates in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there is no answer within seven days the EPEL maintainer is free to request the EPEL branch (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well). If the Fedora maintainer later wants to participate in EPEL, then the EPEL maintainer of the package should hand primary per release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested).
Hi!
On 04.07.2007 15:52, rob myers wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 17:29 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: [...] If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL he should first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to participate in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer can request the branch directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as well.
If it's unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package participates in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there is no answer within seven days the EPEL maintainer is free to request the EPEL branch (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well). If the Fedora maintainer later wants to participate in EPEL, then the EPEL maintainer of the package should hand primary per release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested).
We approved this in this weeks meeting and I added it to the wiki. But on fedora-devel a problem with the last part was raised; see
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-July/msg00332.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-July/msg00334.html
Therefor I'd like to change the last sentence of the policy to this:
If the Fedora maintainer within less then 1 month wants to participate in EPEL, then the EPEL maintainer of the package must hand primary per release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested), if he's interested. If the Fedora maintainer at a later point in time wants to participate in EPEL and get his package back then the EPEL maintainer should strongly consider doing so, but doesn't has to.
How does this sound?
CU thl
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
If the Fedora maintainer within less then 1 month wants to participate in EPEL, then the EPEL maintainer of the package must hand primary per release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested), if he's interested. If the Fedora maintainer at a later point in time wants to participate in EPEL and get his package back then the EPEL maintainer should strongly consider doing so, but doesn't has to.
How does this sound?
Good but I would remove the gender specific language.
Rahul
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 19:46 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
If the Fedora maintainer within less then 1 month wants to participate in EPEL, then the EPEL maintainer of the package must hand primary per release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested), if he's interested. If the Fedora maintainer at a later point in time wants to participate in EPEL and get his package back then the EPEL maintainer should strongly consider doing so, but doesn't has to.
How does this sound?
Good but I would remove the gender specific language.
how does this look?
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL, first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to participate in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer can request the branch directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as well.
If it is unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package participates in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there is no answer within seven days the EPEL maintainer is free to request the EPEL branch (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well).
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and no more than one month has passed, then the EPEL maintainer of the package must hand primary per release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested). If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and more than one month has passed, the EPEL maintainer of the package should strongly consider returning maintainership, but does not have to.
rob.
rob myers wrote: If the Fedora
maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and more than one month has passed, the EPEL maintainer of the package should strongly consider returning maintainership, but does not have to.
Looks better but I would suggest recommending co-maintainership rather than a complete hand off. If a Fedora package maintainer has shown no interest when asked and a new maintainer has taken over and been working on EPEL which has a different release strategy and policies then it is better than the existing maintainer in EPEL work together with the Fedora maintainer and help in any transition process or continue as a team.
Rahul
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 02:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
rob myers wrote: If the Fedora
maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and more than one month has passed, the EPEL maintainer of the package should strongly consider returning maintainership, but does not have to.
Looks better but I would suggest recommending co-maintainership rather than a complete hand off. If a Fedora package maintainer has shown no interest when asked and a new maintainer has taken over and been working on EPEL which has a different release strategy and policies then it is better than the existing maintainer in EPEL work together with the Fedora maintainer and help in any transition process or continue as a team.
how about if we reword the last bit to be "... should strongly consider co-maintainership, but does not have to."
rob.
rob myers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 02:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
rob myers wrote: If the Fedora
maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and more than one month has passed, the EPEL maintainer of the package should strongly consider returning maintainership, but does not have to.
Looks better but I would suggest recommending co-maintainership rather than a complete hand off. If a Fedora package maintainer has shown no interest when asked and a new maintainer has taken over and been working on EPEL which has a different release strategy and policies then it is better than the existing maintainer in EPEL work together with the Fedora maintainer and help in any transition process or continue as a team.
how about if we reword the last bit to be "... should strongly consider co-maintainership, but does not have to."
Yes, that would work.
Rahul
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 02:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
rob myers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 02:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
rob myers wrote: If the Fedora
maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and more than one month has passed, the EPEL maintainer of the package should strongly consider returning maintainership, but does not have to.
Looks better but I would suggest recommending co-maintainership rather than a complete hand off. If a Fedora package maintainer has shown no interest when asked and a new maintainer has taken over and been working on EPEL which has a different release strategy and policies then it is better than the existing maintainer in EPEL work together with the Fedora maintainer and help in any transition process or continue as a team.
how about if we reword the last bit to be "... should strongly consider co-maintainership, but does not have to."
Yes, that would work.
here is a complete version, with the co-maintainership changes rahul suggested. comments?
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL, first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to participate in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer can request the branch directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as well.
If it is unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package participates in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there is no answer within seven days the EPEL maintainer is free to request the EPEL branch (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well).
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and no more than one month has passed, then the EPEL maintainer of the package must hand primary per release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested). If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and more than one month has passed, the EPEL maintainer of the package should strongly consider co-maintainership, but does not have to.
rob.
On 16.07.2007 23:08, rob myers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 02:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
rob myers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 02:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
rob myers wrote:
[...]
thx rob for working on this.
here is a complete version, with the co-maintainership changes rahul suggested. comments?
Looks good. I'd like to get this ratified in tomorrows meeting.
(Note that the old stuff is in the wiki already at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-00c9e731bb7bc5... If this was ratified just add the new text there please. tia!)
Ohh, can somebody handle that for me? I'll miss the meeting tomorrow because I'll help a colleague from work with moving to his new house.
CU thl
On 7/16/07, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 16.07.2007 23:08, rob myers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 02:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
rob myers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 02:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
rob myers wrote:
[...]
thx rob for working on this.
here is a complete version, with the co-maintainership changes rahul suggested. comments?
Looks good. I'd like to get this ratified in tomorrows meeting.
(Note that the old stuff is in the wiki already at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-00c9e731bb7bc5... If this was ratified just add the new text there please. tia!)
Ohh, can somebody handle that for me? I'll miss the meeting tomorrow because I'll help a colleague from work with moving to his new house.
CU thl
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
I can do it.
stahnma
On Monday 16 July 2007 4:08:42 pm rob myers wrote:
here is a complete version, with the co-maintainership changes rahul suggested. comments?
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL, first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to participate in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer can request the branch directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as well.
If it is unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package participates in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there is no answer within seven days the EPEL maintainer is free to request the EPEL branch (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well).
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and no more than one month has passed, then the EPEL maintainer of the package must hand primary per release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested). If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, and more than one month has passed, the EPEL maintainer of the package should strongly consider co-maintainership, but does not have to.
Here is what i propose. make it a bit simpler
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL, first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer can request the branch directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The proposed EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as well.
If it is unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package intends to participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there is no answer within seven days the proposed EPEL maintainer is free to request the EPEL branch and become the EPEL Maintainer (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well). If the Fedora maintainer decides not to be active in EPEL they should be added to the CC list for all bugs so that collaboration can happen where a bug effects Fedora and EPEL.
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course it can be extended to Fedora)
Dennis
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 11:48:02 am Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 11:35:41 am Dennis Gilmore wrote:
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course it can be extended to Fedora)
co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora also.
Just to make it full and clear
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL, first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer can request the branch directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The proposed EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as well.
If it is unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package intends to participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there is no answer within seven days the proposed EPEL maintainer is free to request the EPEL branch and become the EPEL Maintainer (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well). If the Fedora maintainer decides not to be active in EPEL they should be added to the CC list for all bugs so that collaboration can happen where a bug effects Fedora and EPEL.
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora)
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora)
Do we have a generic policy for resolving disputes? I guess the answer is go to FESCo and escalate to board if necessary but having that written down is good.
Rahul
On 01.08.2007 18:59, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 11:48:02 am Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 11:35:41 am Dennis Gilmore wrote:
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course it can be extended to Fedora)
co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora also.
Just to make it full and clear
If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL, first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer can request the branch directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently). The proposed EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as well.
If it is unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package intends to participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer
s/maintainer/& or open a bug/
and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand. If there is no answer within seven days the proposed EPEL maintainer is free to request the EPEL branch and become the EPEL Maintainer (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well). If the Fedora maintainer decides not to be active in EPEL they should be added to the CC list for all bugs so that collaboration can happen where a bug effects Fedora and EPEL.
Up to here (with or without the addition from above): +1
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora)
If I understand the last para correctly we have two maintainers one the same level -- e.g. no primary per-release maintainer? That's not in line with the co-maintainership policy, which makes sure there is always one person as per-release primary maintainer which is responsible in the end for the packages (and has the last word in case of disputes). I prefer such a scheme, because two people co-maintaining a package in the end could quickly lead to situation where each other thought the other one will take care of the package.
So: -1 for this. I'm all for something like that as last para:
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, then he and the EPEL maintainer should discuss which one takes care of the package. One should become primary per release maintainer, which is kind of responsible for the package in that release; the other should become co-maintainer; how those two share the work is up to them.
CU thl
On 06.08.2007 17:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 01.08.2007 18:59, Dennis Gilmore wrote: [...]
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora)
If I understand the last para correctly we have two maintainers one the same level -- e.g. no primary per-release maintainer? That's not in line with the co-maintainership policy, which makes sure there is always one person as per-release primary maintainer which is responsible in the end for the packages (and has the last word in case of disputes). I prefer such a scheme, because two people co-maintaining a package in the end could quickly lead to situation where each other thought the other one will take care of the package.
So: -1 for this. I'm all for something like that as last para:
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, then he and the EPEL maintainer should discuss which one takes care of the package. One should become primary per release maintainer, which is kind of responsible for the package in that release; the other should become co-maintainer; how those two share the work is up to them.
Ping -- I got no reactions on this.
To let me rephrase: with the "Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL." it's afaics unclear who's the primary per-release maintainer and who's the co-maintainer in the end. That's not in line with the co-maintainership policy from Fedora, which requests there is a per-release (release=EPEL4 and EPEL5 in this case) maintainer.
Cu knurd
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 11:57:35 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 06.08.2007 17:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 01.08.2007 18:59, Dennis Gilmore wrote: [...]
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora)
If I understand the last para correctly we have two maintainers one the same level -- e.g. no primary per-release maintainer? That's not in line with the co-maintainership policy, which makes sure there is always one person as per-release primary maintainer which is responsible in the end for the packages (and has the last word in case of disputes). I prefer such a scheme, because two people co-maintaining a package in the end could quickly lead to situation where each other thought the other one will take care of the package.
So: -1 for this. I'm all for something like that as last para:
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, then he and the EPEL maintainer should discuss which one takes care of the package. One should become primary per release maintainer, which is kind of responsible for the package in that release; the other should become co-maintainer; how those two share the work is up to them.
Ping -- I got no reactions on this.
To let me rephrase: with the "Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL." it's afaics unclear who's the primary per-release maintainer and who's the co-maintainer in the end. That's not in line with the co-maintainership policy from Fedora, which requests there is a per-release (release=EPEL4 and EPEL5 in this case) maintainer.
Sorry it was not clear to you. the Fedora maintainer will become the co-maintainer. they EPEL maintainer will remain primary. of course this can be switched if the maintainers agree.
Dennis
On 14.08.2007 20:50, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 11:57:35 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 06.08.2007 17:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 01.08.2007 18:59, Dennis Gilmore wrote: [...]
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL. (Of course co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora)
If I understand the last para correctly we have two maintainers one the same level -- e.g. no primary per-release maintainer? That's not in line with the co-maintainership policy, which makes sure there is always one person as per-release primary maintainer which is responsible in the end for the packages (and has the last word in case of disputes). I prefer such a scheme, because two people co-maintaining a package in the end could quickly lead to situation where each other thought the other one will take care of the package.
So: -1 for this. I'm all for something like that as last para:
If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, then he and the EPEL maintainer should discuss which one takes care of the package. One should become primary per release maintainer, which is kind of responsible for the package in that release; the other should become co-maintainer; how those two share the work is up to them.
Ping -- I got no reactions on this.
To let me rephrase: with the "Then both people will become co-maintainers for EPEL." it's afaics unclear who's the primary per-release maintainer and who's the co-maintainer in the end. That's not in line with the co-maintainership policy from Fedora, which requests there is a per-release (release=EPEL4 and EPEL5 in this case) maintainer.
Sorry it was not clear to you. the Fedora maintainer will become the co-maintainer. they EPEL maintainer will remain primary. of course this can be switched if the maintainers agree.
Could you please clarify the wording in the wiki then to make that more obvious?
CU knurd
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Michael Stahnke -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rob Myers -
Thorsten Leemhuis