Wiki Pages that need love

[Stephen John Smoogen]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:EPEL

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL -- no changes I can see.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/About -- does this make sense to
how EPEL is being used these days?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/AskForFedoraPackageInEPEL -- seems ok.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/CommunicationPlan -- not sure this
is current.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus -- not current.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ -- rewrite time.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies -- update

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Meetings -- update to 1600

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/JeffSheltren/EPELMeetingTime -- dead tree
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/NewMeetingTime -- dead tree

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/PackageMaintainer/GenericJobDescription
-- review please

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ReleaseManagers -- update/rewrite.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SIG combine with about?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule -- MASSIVE CLEANUP

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc -- dead tree

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/WishList ??? is this still useful.
Basically what isn't wanted in EL-4/5?

[Patrice Dumas]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:07:40AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:EPEL
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL -- no changes I can see.

I psopose to merge a simple text after 'EPEL for Contributors', see
below.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/About -- does this make sense to
> how EPEL is being used these days?

It doesn't do harm, in my opinion. I find this page well written and
think that it can be kept as is.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/AskForFedoraPackageInEPEL -- seems ok.

Right.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/CommunicationPlan -- not sure this
> is current.

I don't really see the interest of this page, it is largely duplicate of
the About page, and I think that the text is less clear. The faq links
to an entry in that page (ISV), though. What is interesting should be
merged in About, in my opinion.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus -- not current.

I think that the list of fedora packagers not interested should be kept
and merged in the main EPEL/ContributorStatus page, the other list 
removed, except for Ville entry which would also be in
EPEL/ContributorStatus. Then there should be a way to query from the
database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
should certainly be shortened.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ -- rewrite time.

I have read it, and I only found a reference to owners.list that should
be changed, but otherwise I don't see what's wrong.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies -- update

I suggest remomving the 
How will the repository actually look like? 
part since it is both wrong and unuseful.

EPEL branching if Fedora maintainer does not react
is covered in more detail elsewhere.

I am not sure that this section fits here:
Involve Employers: Packaging as a Job Duty

Otherwise everything else looks good to me.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/PackageMaintainer/GenericJobDescription
> -- review please

Looks good. I don't really get the interest of this page, but it is
linked from many other docs, and I think that I have the background to
comment about that page.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ReleaseManagers -- update/rewrite.

I think that this page should better be rewritten from scratch. It would
be nice to have something about EPEL infrastructure, indeeed.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SIG combine with about?

I don't think this page is needed anymore. I would propose instead to
merge what is interesting in this page to the front EPEL page. The
contact information is already here, the only missing information is how
to join but it is so simple that it doesn't really requirers a specific
page, I think that a short text right after 'EPEL for Contributors'
should be enough, along:

Joining EPEL s as simple as being part of Fedora (e.g. be a part of the
packager group in the account system) and having a love for Enterprise
Linux. Details are in the [[EPEL/FAQ#Contributing_to_EPEL| FAQ entry on
contributing]].
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule -- MASSIVE CLEANUP

Somebody from the steering commitee should certainly rewrite it.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc -- dead tree

Looks like a personnal list, can be kept but should not be linked from
anywhere. Currently it is linked from EPEL/Schedule, but this page has
to be rewritten anyway.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/WishList ??? is this still useful.
> Basically what isn't wanted in EL-4/5?

Maybe there could be instead a query to packagedb that shows packages
that don't have an EPEL branch. But I am not sure that it is very
interesting, in my personal case all the packages that are not in EPEL
are not there on purpose.

Most is deprecated, and otherwise it is a duplicate of the list of 
packagers not interested in EPEL.

As always I can do the changes I advocate if agreed.

--
Pat

[Patrice Dumas]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51:33PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
> mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> should certainly be shortened.

Toshio kindly answered me. Currently there is no url that can be used
for that, but he did a simple script to get that information.

The script is here:
http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/id_to_owner.py

The result is here:
http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/epel-owner.txt

And the bug is filled here:
https://fedorahosted.org/packagedb/ticket/131

I think that the best thing to do would be to put the list of names in a
separate page with something telling 'packagers maintaining an EPEL branch, 
current on the `date of today`' and wait for the bug to be solved.

--
Pat

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 14.10.2008 17:49, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51:33PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
> > mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> > should certainly be shortened.
>
> Toshio kindly answered me. Currently there is no url that can be used
> for that, but he did a simple script to get that information.
>
> The script is here:
> http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/id_to_owner.py
>
> The result is here:
> http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/epel-owner.txt

/me takes a quick look.

The list contains corsepiu, which according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer and according to
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugzilla?tg_format=plain
is not maintaining any packages in EPEL directly. Maybe he's 
co-maintainer somewhere to make sure he sees commits, but the script did 
not catch that.

And note, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo IMHO 
definitely should stay to give people a chance to say "Please don't bug 
me with EPEL at all (not even mails asking if I want to maintain the 
package)" The page IMHO best stays separately and is not merged into 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus, as that makes 
using the page contents in scripts a lot easier.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusYes OTHO should go; 
it should never have existed IMHO.

CU
knurd

[Patrice Dumas]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 06:05:56PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> The list contains corsepiu, which according to
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
> doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer and according to
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugzilla?tg_format=plain
> is not maintaining any packages in EPEL directly. Maybe he's  
> co-maintainer somewhere to make sure he sees commits, but the script did  
> not catch that.

Arg.
> And note, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo IMHO  
> definitely should stay to give people a chance to say "Please don't bug  
> me with EPEL at all (not even mails asking if I want to maintain the

agreed
> package)" The page IMHO best stays separately and is not merged into  
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus, as that makes  
> using the page contents in scripts a lot easier.

Ok, if you think so.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusYes OTHO should go;  
> it should never have existed IMHO.

Ville put a little comment for his case, I think this should stay, also
for other who want to put something about what package they want to
maintain or not, but can be merged with the main page.

--
Pat

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 14.10.2008 18:16, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 06:05:56PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusYes OTHO should go;  
> > it should never have existed IMHO.
>
> Ville put a little comment for his case, I think this should stay, also
> for other who want to put something about what package they want to
> maintain or not, but can be merged with the main page.

I'm not sure if that's worth the trouble, as the whole game in 99,5 
percent of the cases boils down to "Not maintaining packages in EPEL" 
and "send Fedora owner a mail and ask what to do".

Example: Say package foo is missing in EPEL; assume further that Hans 
wants to see it there, but the package is owned by Bill

- if Bill is in ContributorStatusNo then Hans can just request the branch

- if Bill is in ContributorStatusYes, then Hans sends Bill a mail asking 
how to move on and/or how to share the work

- if Bill is not in ContributorStatus{Yes,No}, then Hans sends Bill a 
mail asking how to move on and/or how to share the work

- even if Bill has a special note/comment in ContributorStatusYes (like 
Ville has) then Hans will nevertheless send Bill a mail asking how to 
move on and/or how to share the work

Thus I'd say ContributorStatusYes is unneeded. But maybe I'm missing a 
use-case in my example?

Cu
knurd

[Stephen John Smoogen]

Thanks Patrice for this help.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Patrice Dumas  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:07:40AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:EPEL
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL -- no changes I can see.
>
> I psopose to merge a simple text after 'EPEL for Contributors', see
> below.

Agreed.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/About -- does this make sense to
> > how EPEL is being used these days?
>
> It doesn't do harm, in my opinion. I find this page well written and
> think that it can be kept as is.

Thanks I sometimes parse things really oddly so wanted to see if it
made sense for people.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/AskForFedoraPackageInEPEL -- seems ok.
>
> Right.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/CommunicationPlan -- not sure this
> > is current.
>
> I don't really see the interest of this page, it is largely duplicate of
> the About page, and I think that the text is less clear. The faq links
> to an entry in that page (ISV), though. What is interesting should be
> merged in About, in my opinion.

I agree.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus -- not current.
>
> I think that the list of fedora packagers not interested should be kept
> and merged in the main EPEL/ContributorStatus page, the other list
> removed, except for Ville entry which would also be in
> EPEL/ContributorStatus. Then there should be a way to query from the
> database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
> mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> should certainly be shortened.

I would like to see this page somehow automated.. which ithink you are
doing. If its not automated, I think it should be removed.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ -- rewrite time.
>
> I have read it, and I only found a reference to owners.list that should
> be changed, but otherwise I don't see what's wrong.

Ok.. I think its more of the layout. We could get some help from docs
on doing a FAQ better.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies -- update
>
> I suggest remomving the
> How will the repository actually look like?
> part since it is both wrong and unuseful.

Agreed.
> EPEL branching if Fedora maintainer does not react
> is covered in more detail elsewhere.
>
> I am not sure that this section fits here:
> Involve Employers: Packaging as a Job Duty
>
> Otherwise everything else looks good to me.

Ok. Thanks.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/PackageMaintainer/GenericJobDescription
> > -- review please
>
> Looks good. I don't really get the interest of this page, but it is
> linked from many other docs, and I think that I have the background to
> comment about that page.

Ok I am not sure it was current with how package maintenance is
'defined' by say FESCO. I would prefer to have one 'definition' we
linked to versus many.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ReleaseManagers -- update/rewrite.
>
> I think that this page should better be rewritten from scratch. It would
> be nice to have something about EPEL infrastructure, indeeed.

Yes I agee
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SIG combine with about?
>
> I don't think this page is needed anymore. I would propose instead to
> merge what is interesting in this page to the front EPEL page. The
> contact information is already here, the only missing information is how
> to join but it is so simple that it doesn't really requirers a specific
> page, I think that a short text right after 'EPEL for Contributors'
> should be enough, along:

Agreed.
> Joining EPEL s as simple as being part of Fedora (e.g. be a part of the
> packager group in the account system) and having a love for Enterprise
> Linux. Details are in the [[EPEL/FAQ#Contributing_to_EPEL| FAQ entry on
> contributing]].
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule -- MASSIVE CLEANUP
>
> Somebody from the steering commitee should certainly rewrite it.

Ahem.. yes :).
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc -- dead tree
>
> Looks like a personnal list, can be kept but should not be linked from
> anywhere. Currently it is linked from EPEL/Schedule, but this page has
> to be rewritten anyway.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/WishList ??? is this still useful.
> > Basically what isn't wanted in EL-4/5?
>
> Maybe there could be instead a query to packagedb that shows packages
> that don't have an EPEL branch. But I am not sure that it is very
> interesting, in my personal case all the packages that are not in EPEL
> are not there on purpose.
>
> Most is deprecated, and otherwise it is a duplicate of the list of
> packagers not interested in EPEL.
> As always I can do the changes I advocate if agreed.

I agree with several of the changes.. but would like to make sure we
get at least 2 other eyes.

And thankyou.

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis
 wrote:
> On 14.10.2008 17:49, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51:33PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
> > > mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> > > should certainly be shortened.
> >
> > Toshio kindly answered me. Currently there is no url that can be used
> > for that, but he did a simple script to get that information.
> >
> > The script is here:
> > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/id_to_owner.py
> >
> > The result is here:
> > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/epel-owner.txt
>
> /me takes a quick look.
>
> The list contains corsepiu, which according to
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
> doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer and according to
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugzilla?tg_format=plain
> is not maintaining any packages in EPEL directly. Maybe he's co-maintainer
> somewhere to make sure he sees commits, but the script did not catch that.
>
> And note, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo IMHO
> definitely should stay to give people a chance to say "Please don't bug me
> with EPEL at all (not even mails asking if I want to maintain the package)"
> The page IMHO best stays separately and is not merged into
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus, as that makes using
> the page contents in scripts a lot easier.

I think it would be better to see if we can get this into FAS and have
a link into FAS to show that datapoint.

Having a page that people may or may not know about and may or may
not have changed their minds about is not helpful.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusYes OTHO should go; it
> should never have existed IMHO.
>
> CU
> knurd
>
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 14.10.2008 19:02, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis
>  wrote:
> > On 14.10.2008 17:49, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51:33PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > > database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
> > > > mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> > > > should certainly be shortened.
> > >
> > > Toshio kindly answered me. Currently there is no url that can be used
> > > for that, but he did a simple script to get that information.
> > >
> > > The script is here:
> > > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/id_to_owner.py
> > >
> > > The result is here:
> > > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/epel-owner.txt
> >
> > /me takes a quick look.
> >
> > The list contains corsepiu, which according to
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
> > doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer and according to
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugzilla?tg_format=plain
> > is not maintaining any packages in EPEL directly. Maybe he's co-maintainer
> > somewhere to make sure he sees commits, but the script did not catch that.
> >
> > And note, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo IMHO
> > definitely should stay to give people a chance to say "Please don't bug me
> > with EPEL at all (not even mails asking if I want to maintain the package)"
> > The page IMHO best stays separately and is not merged into
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus, as that makes using
> > the page contents in scripts a lot easier.
>
> I think it would be better to see if we can get this into FAS and have
> a link into FAS to show that datapoint.

Sure. That was the plan from the start, but it got forgotten and for now 
the page did the trick quite well afaics. So it IMHO should stay until 
we have something better.
> Having a page that people may or may not know about

That can happen in FAS as well.
> [...]

CU
knurd

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 10/14/2008 08:02 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis
>  wrote:
> > On 14.10.2008 17:49, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51:33PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > > database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
> > > > mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> > > > should certainly be shortened.
> > >
> > > Toshio kindly answered me. Currently there is no url that can be used
> > > for that, but he did a simple script to get that information.
> > >
> > > The script is here:
> > > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/id_to_owner.py
> > >
> > > The result is here:
> > > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/epel-owner.txt
> >
> > /me takes a quick look.
> >
> > The list contains corsepiu, which according to
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
> > doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer and according to
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugzilla?tg_format=plain
> > is not maintaining any packages in EPEL directly. Maybe he's co-maintainer
> > somewhere to make sure he sees commits, but the script did not catch that.
> >
> > And note, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo IMHO
> > definitely should stay to give people a chance to say "Please don't bug me
> > with EPEL at all (not even mails asking if I want to maintain the package)"
> > The page IMHO best stays separately and is not merged into
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus, as that makes using
> > the page contents in scripts a lot easier.
>
> I think it would be better to see if we can get this into FAS and have
> a link into FAS to show that datapoint.
>
> Having a page that people may or may not know about and may or may
> not have changed their minds about is not helpful.

100% agree here. I for one have completely forgotten about the 
StatusYes/No pages. Hopefully no one cursed me so far because of my mails...

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 14.10.2008 17:49, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51:33PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
> > > mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> > > should certainly be shortened.
> >
> > Toshio kindly answered me. Currently there is no url that can be used
> > for that, but he did a simple script to get that information.
> >
> > The script is here:
> > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/id_to_owner.py
> >
> > The result is here:
> > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/epel-owner.txt
>
> /me takes a quick look.
>
> The list contains corsepiu, which according to
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
> doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer

He's listed as owner for perl-Test-Taint and perl-Params-Validate in
EPEL-4.  I was unable to track down the request for the EPEL branches in
bugzilla (they aren't on the review request) but I do see that rmyers is
the owner of the EL-5 branches.  Perhaps he wants the EL-4 branches as well?
> and according to
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugzilla?tg_format=plain
> is not maintaining any packages in EPEL directly. Maybe he's
> co-maintainer somewhere to make sure he sees commits, but the script did
> not catch that.

This is actually because of how bugzilla works combined with the way we
create that set of acls.  For Fedora, the devel owner is used to
determine who to use as owner in bugzilla.  For EPEL, the EL-5 owner is
used.
> And note, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo IMHO
> definitely should stay to give people a chance to say "Please don't bug
> me with EPEL at all (not even mails asking if I want to maintain the
> package)" The page IMHO best stays separately and is not merged into
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus, as that makes
> using the page contents in scripts a lot easier.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusYes OTHO should go;
> it should never have existed IMHO.

Patrice might want to reply to this but I think your point is well made.

-Toshio

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 14.10.2008 19:02, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis
> >  wrote:
> > > On 14.10.2008 17:49, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51:33PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > > > database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch.
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> > > > > should certainly be shortened.
> > > >
> > > > Toshio kindly answered me. Currently there is no url that can be used
> > > > for that, but he did a simple script to get that information.
> > > >
> > > > The script is here:
> > > > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/id_to_owner.py
> > > >
> > > > The result is here:
> > > > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/epel-owner.txt
> > >
> > > /me takes a quick look.
> > >
> > > The list contains corsepiu, which according to
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
> > > doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer and according to
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugzilla?tg_format=plain
> > > is not maintaining any packages in EPEL directly. Maybe he's
> > > co-maintainer
> > > somewhere to make sure he sees commits, but the script did not catch
> > > that.
> > >
> > > And note, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo IMHO
> > > definitely should stay to give people a chance to say "Please don't
> > > bug me
> > > with EPEL at all (not even mails asking if I want to maintain the
> > > package)"
> > > The page IMHO best stays separately and is not merged into
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus, as that makes
> > > using
> > > the page contents in scripts a lot easier.
> >
> > I think it would be better to see if we can get this into FAS and have
> > a link into FAS to show that datapoint.
>
> Sure. That was the plan from the start, but it got forgotten and for now
> the page did the trick quite well afaics. So it IMHO should stay until
> we have something better.
> > Having a page that people may or may not know about
>
> That can happen in FAS as well.

Thanks to ivazquez and some other people FAS has support for plugins.
This would be a good thing to include that way, I think.

-Toshio

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 14.10.2008 20:03, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > On 14.10.2008 17:49, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51:33PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > > database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll
> > > > mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page
> > > > should certainly be shortened.
> > >
> > > Toshio kindly answered me. Currently there is no url that can be used
> > > for that, but he did a simple script to get that information.
> > >
> > > The script is here:
> > > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/id_to_owner.py
> > >
> > > The result is here:
> > > http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/pkgdb/epel-owner.txt
> >
> > /me takes a quick look.
> >
> > The list contains corsepiu, which according to
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
> > doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer
>
> He's listed as owner for perl-Test-Taint and perl-Params-Validate in
> EPEL-4.

Ahh, that explains it.
> I was unable to track down the request for the EPEL branches in
> bugzilla (they aren't on the review request) but I do see that rmyers is
> the owner of the EL-5 branches.

I remember that corsepiu once accidentally was assigned as owner for a 
few epel packages. Maybe that (without purpose) was not fixed properly?
> Perhaps he wants the EL-4 branches as well?

Rob CCed.
> > and according to
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugzilla?tg_format=plain
> > is not maintaining any packages in EPEL directly. Maybe he's
> > co-maintainer somewhere to make sure he sees commits, but the script did
> > not catch that.
>
> This is actually because of how bugzilla works combined with the way we
> create that set of acls.  For Fedora, the devel owner is used to
> determine who to use as owner in bugzilla.  For EPEL, the EL-5 owner is
> used.

Ahh, that explains it. Thx for tracking this down.

Cu
knurd

[Rob Myers]

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 14:24 -0400, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 14.10.2008 20:03, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > On 14.10.2008 17:49, Patrice Dumas wrote:

<snip>
> > > The list contains corsepiu, which according to
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
> > > doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer
> >
> > He's listed as owner for perl-Test-Taint and perl-Params-Validate in
> > EPEL-4.
>
> Ahh, that explains it.
> > I was unable to track down the request for the EPEL branches in
> > bugzilla (they aren't on the review request) but I do see that rmyers is
> > the owner of the EL-5 branches.
>
> I remember that corsepiu once accidentally was assigned as owner for a
> few epel packages. Maybe that (without purpose) was not fixed properly?
> > Perhaps he wants the EL-4 branches as well?

I'm not particularly interested in supporting EPEL-4 branches, but am
willing to do so if there is a need.

Thanks,

rob.

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 14.10.2008 20:56, rob myers wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 14:24 -0400, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > On 14.10.2008 20:03, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > > On 14.10.2008 17:49, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >>> The list contains corsepiu, which according to
> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
> >>> doesn't want to be a EPEL Contributer
> >> He's listed as owner for perl-Test-Taint and perl-Params-Validate in
> >> EPEL-4.
> > Ahh, that explains it.
> >
> >> I was unable to track down the request for the EPEL branches in
> >> bugzilla (they aren't on the review request) but I do see that rmyers is
> >> the owner of the EL-5 branches.
> > I remember that corsepiu once accidentally was assigned as owner for a
> > few epel packages. Maybe that (without purpose) was not fixed properly?
> >> Perhaps he wants the EL-4 branches as well?
>
> I'm not particularly interested in supporting EPEL-4 branches, but am
> willing to do so if there is a need.

It seems perl-Test-Taint and perl-Params-Validate never have been build 
for EPEL4; so I'd say I just ask corsepiu to orphan those two, then 
everything should be fine again afaics.

Cu
knurd

[Patrice Dumas]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 06:43:02PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> I'm not sure if that's worth the trouble, as the whole game in 99,5  
> percent of the cases boils down to "Not maintaining packages in EPEL"  
> and "send Fedora owner a mail and ask what to do".
>
> Example: Say package foo is missing in EPEL; assume further that Hans  
> wants to see it there, but the package is owned by Bill
>
> if Bill is in ContributorStatusNo then Hans can just request the branch
>
> if Bill is in ContributorStatusYes, then Hans sends Bill a mail asking
>
> how to move on and/or how to share the work
> if Bill is not in ContributorStatus{Yes,No}, then Hans sends Bill a
>
> mail asking how to move on and/or how to share the work
> even if Bill has a special note/comment in ContributorStatusYes (like
>
> Ville has) then Hans will nevertheless send Bill a mail asking how to  
> move on and/or how to share the work
>
> Thus I'd say ContributorStatusYes is unneeded. But maybe I'm missing a  
> use-case in my example?

No, I think you are right. I still see some interest in documenting the
involvment in EPEL, but this is likely not to be the right place to do
it. So should just go.

--
Pat

[Patrice Dumas]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:02:58AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> I think it would be better to see if we can get this into FAS and have
> a link into FAS to show that datapoint.
>
> Having a page that people may or may not know about and may or may
> not have changed their minds about is not helpful.

I don't really understand that part, but everybody else seems to
understand so it isn't that important, but I'll still ask, maybe I am
not alone.

Does it mean that when signing to EPEL, in the future, people would
change something in their FAS account? For example to allow an addendum
to the CLA or something along that? Or to allow to have people not in
fedora but in EPEL?

--
Pat

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Patrice Dumas  wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:02:58AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > I think it would be better to see if we can get this into FAS and have
> > a link into FAS to show that datapoint.
> >
> > Having a page that people may or may not know about and may or may
> > not have changed their minds about is not helpful.
>
> I don't really understand that part, but everybody else seems to
> understand so it isn't that important, but I'll still ask, maybe I am
> not alone.
>
> Does it mean that when signing to EPEL, in the future, people would
> change something in their FAS account? For example to allow an addendum
> to the CLA or something along that? Or to allow to have people not in
> fedora but in EPEL?

It was me talkign to myself out-loud to figure out what of the above
would be needed. I am not sure its soemthing to be feasible at this
point.

Anyway, consider this a go-ahead to make the changes you listed.
Thanks a million.

[Patrice Dumas]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:27:21AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Anyway, consider this a go-ahead to make the changes you listed.
> Thanks a million.

Most is done.

Instead of removing completly the wishlist, I rewrote
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/WishList
to merely point to fedora wishlist with eome additional info.

I am waiting for the formal acceptance of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
to remove the corresponding entries in other pages and use links  to
that page instead.

In the end I readded the SIG page since the removal was controversial
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SIG
although I really don't get what and who this SIG covers.

--
Pat