Dealing with the "my packages" problem

[Rob Crittenden]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:08:24PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> After some IRC discussion I've come to the following proposal: that
>> maintainers have some way to easily indicate how open they are to
>> external contributions.  Basically this would take the form of a few
>> options in pkgdb where maintainers can indicate their willingness to
>> have provenpackagers carry out a few actions.  Please read the github
>> ticket for details:
>>   https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgdb2/issues/274
> 
> What if we made the options be about _the package_ rather than about
> the maintainer's prickliness? Rather than "Please don't touch my
> package" (I know that's not your wording; added for emphasis) make it
> "This package has unusual complications; please coordinate any changes
> with the package maintainers."
> 
> Well, except, less wordy. :)
> 
> And, in thinking about it, I don't think we should encourage the
> option of "Don't even ask". If there really _is_ something that's a big
> deal, the package maintainer can always say no when asked.
> 

As one of the complainers about current policy, here are my thoughts.

I appreciate tibbs bringing up the discussion. I'd vote for a default
stance of "Ask first."

I can only speak for myself, but as someone who owns only a handful of
packages that I tend to somewhat carefully, if perhaps too slowly in
some cases for the rapidly moving Fedora. Perhaps I would feel
differently if I maintained 100+ packages like some others. I wonder if
what is obvious to provenpackers is not so obvious to the little packagers.

The word that I used to use when thinking about the packages I
maintained was "pride." I didn't break Fedora, even rawhide (usually,
anyway). I was careful and did things like test compatibility of new
versions with other packages to at least take a pass at ensuring I
wasn't going to break someone else. Rawhide is not supposed to be a
dumping ground, right?

The word "pride" is nowhere in the Fedora packaging or core values.
Instead the values stress Fast and First. Ok fine, so I take from this
that I should care a lot less about what I do because so what, right? If
I update to an upstream that breaks everyone else, well, I'm keeping the
core value of First and therefore it is up to others to deal with the
fallout. Or no?

If I happen to be the upstream and someone comes along and makes
incompatible changes to the package, well, it's their right and I need
to just shut up and move along.

For me it was never about crossing some imaginary "ownership" line. I
took pride and responsibility that the packages I maintained were in
good shape and someone making unannounced changes, good intentions
aside, made work for me to go and vet the change and test it on their
timeline, not mine.

As with most things in life there needs to be balance. I don't think
saying in advance "I'm going to do X to package Y" is asking too much
(with the obvious exception of rebuilds). I have a rather limited world
view of packaging in Fedora though, so maybe I'm missing the bigger picture.

In any case, I'm rather cynical about the whole thing now.

rob