vondruch reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue There was recently mass retirement of orphaned packages. However, the retirement does not work as expected IMO and not everything is removed.
Now I'll continue to speak specifically about rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on [[1]], but I suspect that this is a general issue.
I have no Idea why there is still "ruby-packagers-sig" listed among committers. Every committer should be removed upon retirement IMO and groups especially.
Also, the package is somehow watched by me. I don't know it that is because I am member of ruby-packagers-sig, but I definitely don't want to watch such package.
* When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD) The sooner the better.
* When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD) When Pagure is fixed or replaced by something else.
* If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? I am annoyed ;)
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8026
till added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Since FESCo decided on the recent orphan/retirement policies, I guess the general procedure should be discussed there. Removing all the commiters etc might make sense and someone needs to implement this for pagure. ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8026
zbyszek added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` I don't think FESCo can be helpful when discussing the implementation details of retirement. Essentially, when somebody says "fedpkg retire foo", foo should be gone, whatever that means.
I think it is reasonable to remove committers. On the one hand, existing committers are obviously not interested in the package. And if the package is ever unretired, we expect to put in a new set of committers. On the other hand, removing existing committers — and in particular groups — helps ensure that no accidental modifications will be pushed.
@vondruch are there any *particular* issues that the lack of ACL removal causes? For example unwanted mails, or notifcations, or listing of the package in some publicly visible list, etc. ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8026
vondruch added a new comment to an issue you are following: ``
@vondruch are there any particular issues that the lack of ACL removal causes? For example unwanted mails, or notifcations, or listing of the package in some publicly visible list, etc.
Probably all of this. But the way I came to report this issue is that in Pagure, I am reported as maintainer of rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on. IOW I don't want rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on listed here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/vondruch/projects
However, one thing I realized is that previously, it was possible to retire the package just for specific branches and to manage ACLs per branch. It is not possible now AFAIK. That might be the reason, why the group is still listed as maintainer of the package. But will it be ever corrected? I don't think so, but I might be mistaken. ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8026
till added a new comment to an issue you are following: ``
I don't think FESCo can be helpful when discussing the implementation details of retirement. Essentially, when somebody says "fedpkg retire foo", foo should be gone, whatever that means.
fedpkg retire foo will retire the particular branch, one can do this for the master branch for an EPEL only package and the expectation would be that the committers stay, since they still need to manage EPEL packages. retiring an orphaned package is a special case here.
Whether or not committers are removed is less a technical decision (implementation detail) but a policy question, therefore FESCo makes sense since all the remaining retiring of orphaned packages discussion happened there.
I think it is reasonable to remove committers. On the one hand, existing committers are obviously not interested in the package. And if the package is ever unretired, we expect to put in a new set of committers. On the other hand, removing existing committers — and in particular groups — helps ensure that no accidental modifications will be pushed.
This would make sense when the last branch is retired/becomes EOL. ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8026
till added a new comment to an issue you are following: ``
However, one thing I realized is that previously, it was possible to retire the package just for specific branches and to manage ACLs per branch. It is not possible now AFAIK. That might be the reason, why the group is still listed as maintainer of the package. But will it be ever corrected? I don't think so, but I might be mistaken.
It is possible to retire individual branches but not possible to have individual branch ownership. I.e. if the package is retired for Rawhide, the commiters can only commit to the remaining branches (at least I hope this is how pagure implements this) - at least building will not be possible for the retired branches. ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8026
The issue: `Packages are not retired entirely` of project: `releng` has been assigned to `humaton` by syeghiay.
syeghiay added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Assigned to @humaton ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8026
rel-eng@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Suzanne Yeghiayan -
Till Maas
-
Vít Ondruch
-
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek