[csw-maintainers] Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

[Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński]

2013/8/11 Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
>> 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.

Yes, but inhibited based on what data? The only data the system has,
is the contents of the package.

> Consequently, if you tell me where
> is the code responsible for the association I can review it and propose
> a concrete modification.

Is this the line you have in mind? This is where the mantis database
update is done:
http://sourceforge.net/p/opencsw-ruby/code/ci/master/tree/lib/csw/db/mantis.rb#l112

>> 1. When you upload a package, you become the package owner/maintainer.
>
> The systematic of this association is what's annoying me.

I think it should be named for what it is: who last uploaded the
package. This is a useful piece of information and we should not
inhibit it.

>> 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.

Cool. We'll probably find a middle ground. A lot of that expectation
revolves around wording used on our website.

>> 3. You have a small contribution to make.
>
> Quite often. If it's a maintained package I discuss it first with the
> relevant person.
>
>> 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.

We're very different from an enterprise environment. In enterprise,
the employer pays for the employee's time, and the employee's
obligation is to use the time in the way the employer wishes. In an
open source project, people offer contributions based on their innate
motivation. If someone doesn't want to perform a certain task, there
is no way you can make them do it. If you try, they will simply walk
away.

>> 5. Therefore, you do not make the contribution.
>
> Even with the incurred burden I make it. The proof is in the logs.

haha, I don't mean you personally. :) it's an expression as in
"brushing your teeth is healthy". I can rephrase it as "people are
less likely to contribute".

>> You think that #2 is fine and you want to fix #1.
>
> Not exactly.
>
>> 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.

I understand that you didn't mean that the solution absolutely has to
be a flag for csw-upload-pkg. You probably mean some method of
indicating that you don't want your name to appear on the package's
page. There are many possible ways to achieve that. (Also, I do
believe that if you're building and pushing the package, it should be
somehow reflected on the website.)

Maciej