Hello, folks.
A while back, a few of us went through a mad rush to get our packages in EPEL. This lead to a number of situations where the main maintainer of a package didn't want to maintain the EPEL8 version of his package and we had to wait for a proven-packager to push to the branch.
I'ld like to propose we create a perl-packagers-sig group so that we can have non-proven packagers being able to git push.
Thoughts? Opinions? Rotten tomatoes?
Emmanuel
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:22:40 +0100 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel@seyman.fr wrote:
Hello, folks.
A while back, a few of us went through a mad rush to get our packages in EPEL. This lead to a number of situations where the main maintainer of a package didn't want to maintain the EPEL8 version of his package and we had to wait for a proven-packager to push to the branch.
I'ld like to propose we create a perl-packagers-sig group so that we can have non-proven packagers being able to git push.
Thoughts? Opinions? Rotten tomatoes?
This is fine by me but would mainly need buy-in from the packagers that don't want to support EPEL as they'd have to have perl-packagers-sig group added to their packages and they might have concerns about other people committing updates in the Fedora branches.
Paul.
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 09:01:00AM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:22:40 +0100 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel@seyman.fr wrote:
Hello, folks.
A while back, a few of us went through a mad rush to get our packages in EPEL. This lead to a number of situations where the main maintainer of a package didn't want to maintain the EPEL8 version of his package and we had to wait for a proven-packager to push to the branch.
I'ld like to propose we create a perl-packagers-sig group so that we can have non-proven packagers being able to git push.
Thoughts? Opinions? Rotten tomatoes?
This is fine by me but would mainly need buy-in from the packagers that don't want to support EPEL as they'd have to have perl-packagers-sig group added to their packages and they might have concerns about other people committing updates in the Fedora branches.
Moreover the group can be perceived as a proxy hiding the real packagers into a fog of anonymity. Read whoever becomes a member of the group, including in the far future, can push into my package, in that future. If I were against approving people, I would be definitly against approving opaque groups.
The group could help decrease the bureaucracy when maintainers agree. But I'd still prefer a Fedora maintainer to maintain the EPEL. Because when a Fedora maintainer decides whether to push a new version to an older Fedora, can also decide on EPEL. Having two different maintainers means doubling the work. I can confess that I would forgot on my EPEL packages otherwise. Therefore I will probably still keep asking Fedora maintainers whether they want to do the package in EPEL themselves.
Emanuel, I think you should create the group, let's see whether it becomes used and useful.
-- Petr
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 10:22:40PM +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
A while back, a few of us went through a mad rush to get our packages in EPEL. This lead to a number of situations where the main maintainer of a package didn't want to maintain the EPEL8 version of his package and we had to wait for a proven-packager to push to the branch.
Interesting. I did not know that a proven packager can bypass the request-branch request check that requires the person the be in admin(?) list of the package.
Recently some had a similar issue. Effectively packagers willing to maintain EPEL packages cannot do it because of a lack of Fedora maintainer's blessing.
I'ld like to propose we create a perl-packagers-sig group so that we can have non-proven packagers being able to git push.
Do you mean a Pagure group https://src.fedoraproject.org/groups/? I thought we already have perl-sig group for sending the notifications. Is that a differnt class of groups?
I would prefer shorter "perl-sig" group name.
I'm not against, but I agree with Paul that it will hit the silent wall again.
-- Petr
* Petr Pisar [06/03/2020 11:24] :
Do you mean a Pagure group https://src.fedoraproject.org/groups/?
Yes. Users and groups for the src.fp.o instance of pagure are managed through FAS so this is the equivalent of a FAS group.
I thoughtwe already have perl-sig group for sending the notifications. Is that a differnt class of groups?
perl-sig is a pseudo-user, not a group and it is next to impossible to convert a pseudo-user into a group.
See https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7456 for the gory details.
I would prefer shorter "perl-sig" group name.
See above. I finally went with perl-maint-sig (mimicking the Erlang SIG) instead of perl-packagers-sig (where I was trying to mimic the Ruby Sig).
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8743
I'm not against, but I agree with Paul that it will hit the silent wall again.
Let's see what happens.
Emmanuel
* Emmanuel Seyman [12/03/2020 21:03] :
perl-sig is a pseudo-user, not a group and it is next to impossible to convert a pseudo-user into a group.
Typing that sentence out made me wonder why we have so few notifications going to the list these days. Today, I decided to look at the perl-sig account and realized that it watches just 33 packages instead of the 2400+ packages it was watching at one point or the 3000+ packages it should be watching right now.
Once I calm down, I will open a ticket to get this fixed.
Emmanuel
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:39 PM Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel@seyman.fr wrote:
- Emmanuel Seyman [12/03/2020 21:03] :
perl-sig is a pseudo-user, not a group and it is next to impossible to
convert
a pseudo-user into a group.
Typing that sentence out made me wonder why we have so few notifications going to the list these days. Today, I decided to look at the perl-sig account and realized that it watches just 33 packages instead of the 2400+ packages it was watching at one point or the 3000+ packages it should be watching right now.
Once I calm down, I will open a ticket to get this fixed.
Ugh. That is disheartening. Thank you for checking!
Emmanuel _______________________________________________ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
* Emmanuel Seyman [14/03/2020 00:39] :
Once I calm down, I will open a ticket to get this fixed.
This is https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8768
Emmanuel
* Emmanuel Seyman [12/03/2020 21:03] :
Okay, this was done a few weeks ago (sorry for the lag, the world's been kind of crazy, these last few weeks).
Does anybody want to be an admin of the group (I'ld rather not be alone to do this)? Who wants to be a member of the group?
Emmanuel
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:23:03AM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
- Emmanuel Seyman [12/03/2020 21:03] :
Does anybody want to be an admin of the group (I'ld rather not be alone to do this)? Who wants to be a member of the group?
Please add me (ppisar).
Could you please subscribe yourself to the list perl-maint@lists.fedoraproject.org? I could do it myself, but I'd like to check that the subscription requestes are processed as expected. I will make you the list owner (or moderator?), so that you can manage the list members yourself.
-- Petr
* Petr Pisar [20/04/2020 10:12] :
Please add me (ppisar).
Done.
Could you please subscribe yourself to the list perl-maint@lists.fedoraproject.org? I could do it myself, but I'd like to
Done.
Emmanuel
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 03:35:13PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
Could you please subscribe yourself to the list perl-maint@lists.fedoraproject.org? I could do it myself, but I'd like to
Done.
You should have received an automated request for confirmating the subscription. Please reply to that chalenge with the same subject line and with any (e.g. empty) body.
Once the list server receives the confirmation, list owner will receive a request for an aproval.
-- Petr
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 02:56:44PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 03:35:13PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
Could you please subscribe yourself to the list perl-maint@lists.fedoraproject.org? I could do it myself, but I'd like to
Done.
You should have received an automated request for confirmating the subscription. Please reply to that chalenge with the same subject line and with any (e.g. empty) body.
Once the list server receives the confirmation, list owner will receive a request for an aproval.
Thanks. I approved the subscription and added you to the list owners. I'm not sure if you received any confirmation by e-mail. The new Mailman is a huge regress in a user interface.
-- Petr
* Petr Pisar [22/04/2020 16:20] :
Thanks. I approved the subscription and added you to the list owners. I'm not sure if you received any confirmation by e-mail. The new Mailman is a huge regress in a user interface.
No confirmation but I can manage the list once I login on the web interface.
Emmanuel
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:23:03 +0200 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel@seyman.fr wrote:
- Emmanuel Seyman [12/03/2020 21:03] :
Okay, this was done a few weeks ago (sorry for the lag, the world's been kind of crazy, these last few weeks).
Does anybody want to be an admin of the group (I'ld rather not be alone to do this)? Who wants to be a member of the group?
I'll be a member.
Paul.
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Emmanuel Seyman -
Paul Howarth -
Petr Pisar -
Tim Orling