[csw-maintainers] Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
pfelecan at opencsw.org
Sun Aug 11 14:34:56 CEST 2013
"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:
> 2013/8/11 Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
>> "Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:
>>> 2013/8/11 Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
>>>> To come back to my proposition, in which part of the code is the
>>>> association made, i.e. uploader becomes maintainer? Answering this
>>>> question can simplify my life instead of wandering all the surface of
>>>> the system.
>>> The starting point is here:
>>> Every other bits of infrastructure read this pkginfo field.
>> This I know. What I wish is to inhibit this, when supplying --nmu to
>> csw-upload-pkg for an existing package. Where is this code situated?
> When you're running csw-upload-pkg, it's too late. All such
> information must be inside the package, and that means it has to be
> done in GAR. Probably as a field in pkginfo.
How's that? The association is not done yet. That this association is
based on what's in the package I understand. What I don't understand is
how it's too late: the association is made after the invocation of
csw-upload-pkg and this can be inhibited in any system that I can
imagine, directly or by side effect. Consequently, if you tell me where
is the code responsible for the association I can review it and propose
a concrete modification.
>>> I want to ask this question. It might sound like a rhetorical one, but
>>> it's not: it's one of the central questions to the discussion:
>>> Do you become the owner of the package because you are willing to take
>>> on the owner's duties, or do you take on the owner's duties because
>>> you've become the package owner?
>> Neither when I'm doing a NMU.
>> Now, let me ask a pragmatical question: what is the reason for which my
>> proposition is not worthy of implementation?
> But it is! We only need to talk about some details.
Good. We agree on this.
> I think I understand the idea: you want to be able to contribute
> without taking on other associated burden, right? This is definitely
> worth implementing.
> IIUC, the problem you're addressing is this:
> 1. When you upload a package, you become the package owner/maintainer.
The systematic of this association is what's annoying me.
> 2. A package owner/maintainer is responsible for everything that's
> associated with the package, e.g. any current and future bugs.
This is not axiomatic and is what I wish to reasonably relax.
> 3. You have a small contribution to make.
Quite often. If it's a maintained package I discuss it first with the
> 4. The benefit of the contribution does not outweigh the burden.
Again, it's not a question of burden but responsible
management. Dilution of responsibility is a very bad thing and is,
unfortunately, encountered more and more often in enterprise
environment. Lets not replicate that.
> 5. Therefore, you do not make the contribution.
Even with the incurred burden I make it. The proof is in the logs.
> You think that #2 is fine and you want to fix #1.
> I think that #1 is fine and I want to fix #2.
We disagree on the "fineness" of #1 and this affirmation is in
contradiction with the answer that you give to my question about the
worthiness of my proposition.
More information about the maintainers