[Sugar-devel] Non-maintainer uploads of activities

[Rafael Ortiz]

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"
> policy.
> 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 [1] point 7.4, and teams [2] to manage MIA,
> Fedora have a Non responsive maintainers policy [3].
> Probably, we can change the time lapses, but the general idea is the same.
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> [1]
> http://docs.huihoo.com/debian/manuals/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html
> [2] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/MIA
> [3]
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
>
>
> 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:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I would like to propose adopting the Debian Non-Maintainer-Upload (NMU)
>> process [1] 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
>> "123").
>>
>> 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
>>  [2]
>> - 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 [3] 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 [4], 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.
>>
>> Sascha
>>
>> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu
>> [2] https://bugs.sugarlabs.org/
>> [3] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team
>> [4] http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint
>> --
>> http://sascha.silbe.org/
>> http://www.infra-silbe.de/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20110531/28c99ef8/attachment.html>