[Sugar-devel] Non-maintainer uploads of activities
rafael at activitycentral.com
Tue May 31 16:55:09 EDT 2011
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org> wrote:
> I am not so sure this is a solution.
> I think we need active maintainers, not only bugs fixes.
> IMHO we need a MIA ("missing in action") or "non responsive maintainer"
> We have hundred of pending tickets, from months or years ago.
> And when we start to work in a abandoned activity, there are not a clear
> way to request
> access to git or aslo (aslo is easier than git)
> Debian have policies  point 7.4, and teams  to manage MIA,
> Fedora have a Non responsive maintainers policy .
> Probably, we can change the time lapses, but the general idea is the same.
>  http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/MIA
> I tend to agree more with Gonzalo here,
although I think that we'll need both policies in the long run,
as we have been experiencing, the key to solve some activities problems (as
Gonzalo depicted) is a MIA policy. Debian overall process is very well
described, we can follow it but changing time frames.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Sascha Silbe <
> sascha-ml-reply-to-2011-2 at silbe.org> wrote:
>> I would like to propose adopting the Debian Non-Maintainer-Upload (NMU)
>> process  for Fructose. Individual activity authors would also be
>> encouraged to allow their activities to be NMU'ed following this policy.
>> The sections I'd consider applicable to Sugar Labs are 5.11.1, 5.11.2
>> (read debian/changelog as Release Notes) and 5.11.4. Since the version
>> number rules are different in Sugar, the NMU should append ".1" instead
>> of "+nmu1" (e.g. "123.1" for an NMU based on the maintainer release
>> A few key points:
>> - NMUs are only to be done for bug fixes
>> - all bugs that get fixed by the NMU must have been reported in the BTS
>> - the maintainer must have been given sufficient time to act (rule of
>> thumb: 2-10 days depending on the severity of the bug that gets fixed)
>> The Infrastructure Team  would be authorised to manage permissions
>> on git.sl.o and a.sl.o as needed for the NMU to happen.
>> Since Sugar Labs lacks an equivalent of the Debian New Maintainer
>> process , I would like to add a requirement that the uploader has
>> successfully gone through review for a Sucrose (Glucose + Fructose)
>> package at least once and their patch been included in mainline. Note:
>> Patch author and uploader can be different persons.
>>  http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu
>>  https://bugs.sugarlabs.org/
>>  https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team
>>  http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sugar-devel