On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 03:35 +0000, updates@fedoraproject.org wrote:
dchen has requested the pushing of the following update to testing:
================================================================================ libchewing-0.3.2-0.fc8 ================================================================================ Release: Fedora 8 Status: pending Type: bugfix Karma: 0 Request: testing Notes: Upstream update Submitter: dchen Submitted: 2008-12-16 03:35:37 Comments: dchen - 2008-12-16 03:35:38 (karma 0) This update has been submitted for testing
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libchewing-0.3.2-0.fc8
What is the purpose of this version bump (0.3.1 -> 0.3.2) in F8, which only has a few weeks of lifespan yet. There is no information in the update request that would help users understand why they should consume this update. Please fill in some details, and consider whether the update is suitable for Fedora 8. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MaintainerResponsibility#Ma...
On Monday 15 December 2008 09:13:46 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 03:35 +0000, updates@fedoraproject.org wrote:
dchen has requested the pushing of the following update to testing:
========================================================================= ======= libchewing-0.3.2-0.fc8 ========================================================================= ======= Release: Fedora 8 Status: pending Type: bugfix Karma: 0 Request: testing Notes: Upstream update Submitter: dchen Submitted: 2008-12-16 03:35:37 Comments: dchen - 2008-12-16 03:35:38 (karma 0) This update has been submitted for testing
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libchewing-0.3.2-0.fc8
What is the purpose of this version bump (0.3.1 -> 0.3.2) in F8, which only has a few weeks of lifespan yet. There is no information in the update request that would help users understand why they should consume this update. Please fill in some details, and consider whether the update is suitable for Fedora 8. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MaintainerResponsibility#M aintain_stability_for_users
Do these really need to go to the list? It seems more like public humiliation than constructive advice.
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 21:16 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
Do these really need to go to the list? It seems more like public humiliation than constructive advice.
It's peer review.
Jesse Keating wrote, at 12/16/2008 02:23 PM +9:00:
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 21:16 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
Do these really need to go to the list? It seems more like public humiliation than constructive advice.
It's peer review.
I also think that this is not just a advice but rather a criticism on public space
Mamoru
Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
I also think that this is not just a advice but rather a criticism on public space
Mamoru
Fedora is already filled to the brim with people cuddling each other. It really must stop somewhere or else the package system will get worse and worse and worse...
If you can't take a simple e-mail review question, you shouldn't be in charge of packaging, in my humble opinion. Yes, you're giving your time and effort for free, but you're left in charge of a big responsibility to provide a safe and half-way stable environment.
On Monday 15 December 2008 10:10:38 pm Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
I also think that this is not just a advice but rather a criticism on public space
Mamoru
Fedora is already filled to the brim with people cuddling each other. It really must stop somewhere or else the package system will get worse and worse and worse...
What? Fedora is filled with a ridiculous amount of in-fighting. And "the packaging system" has nothing to do with sending an email to just the maintainer, or also CC'ing a public mailing list.
If you can't take a simple e-mail review question, you shouldn't be in charge of packaging, in my humble opinion. Yes, you're giving your time and effort for free, but you're left in charge of a big responsibility to provide a safe and half-way stable environment.
I'm not asking Jesse not to email the maintainer, just to do it off-list.
Regards,
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 22:14 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
I'm not asking Jesse not to email the maintainer, just to do it off-list.
By asking on list, I'm providing the conversation in an open and public way. I'm also helping to remind others of what to do when preparing their own updates.
To paraphrase a good friend: I mean where would open source be if people just openly complained about other people's #*^$$!
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 23:25 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
By asking on list, I'm providing the conversation in an open and public way. I'm also helping to remind others of what to do when preparing their own updates.
I'll also note that I've yet to receive a reply, of any kind, from any of the maintainers or co-maintainers of the software, nor the maintainer's sponsor.
On Tue December 16 2008, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 23:25 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
By asking on list, I'm providing the conversation in an open and public way. I'm also helping to remind others of what to do when preparing their own updates.
I'll also note that I've yet to receive a reply, of any kind, from any of the maintainers or co-maintainers of the software, nor the maintainer's sponsor.
Afaics you only cc'ed the maintainer (and not the co-maintainers or sponsor) and did not add the comment to the update itself in Bodhi, which is where the comment belongs at least to, e.g. with an additional pointer to the mailinglist archive.
But in general I think it's good that you help you improve the information in updates announcements. :-)
Regards, Till
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 10:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Afaics you only cc'ed the maintainer (and not the co-maintainers or sponsor) and did not add the comment to the update itself in Bodhi, which is where the comment belongs at least to, e.g. with an additional pointer to the mailinglist archive.
Good points. I didn't cc the co-maintainers as I don't have a quick/easy way of accessing that information. We don't expose that in our pre-built aliases.
Also I should have commented in bodhi as well, that is a good point.
But in general I think it's good that you help you improve the information in updates announcements. :-)
Thanks! I'm just trying to take action where I think action is needed.
On Tue December 16 2008, Jesse Keating wrote:
Good points. I didn't cc the co-maintainers as I don't have a quick/easy way of accessing that information. We don't expose that in our pre-built aliases.
It seemed to me that mails to package-owner fedoraproject org are also sent to at least some co-maintainers. I did not read it anywhere (is it somewhere publicly documented?), but I once sent an e-mail to one of these addresses and I got replies from two different maintainers.
Regards, Till
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 21:52 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
It seemed to me that mails to package-owner fedoraproject org are also sent to at least some co-maintainers. I did not read it anywhere (is it somewhere publicly documented?), but I once sent an e-mail to one of these addresses and I got replies from two different maintainers.
Huh, you are correct. I hadn't realized that before.
How about locking the tag for security updates only near EOL? Otherwise these kind of things are kind of bound to happen I guess.
Jens