On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:40:23 +0100
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
Sometimes, it is necessary to perform a mass rename to bring some
consistency to a class of packages.
Yeah, after a guideline change or a mass change upstream. ;(
In that case any workflow that proceeds package by package is the
road
to failure, since
— either each package is done separately by different people with
little coordination (and you don't get consistency, some packagers
will always slack or fail)
But if it's done based on a guideline or upstream change, shouldn't
they all be consistent with the new guideline or upstream name?
– or one person goes through each package and you get burnout and
again, failure (and I won't even speak of doing a new review for each
package)
Yeah, also one person looking at a bunch of packages in a row could
easily miss something from looking at too many things at once.
I'd like to see a mode where:
— a list of consistent renames is approved collectively
— the associated cvs work is done in one shot by infra
— each individual packager gets to work on the spec changes of his
packages
— an experienced packager or a group of packagers is mandated to check
it's done correctly and eventually to substitute to the packagers who
don't do their bit at all
I'm not sure what this saves over the proposed 'post to the list and
get one packager to check your spec/renamed package' ?
Using that maintainers could update, post to the list, and the
packager/group of packagers could approve them.
I suppose it might be quicker if timing is important.
Would you be able to propose an amendment to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RenamingPackages
that would cover this case in a way you think is good?
In general renaming a package isn't that hard, it's just that some
people don't pay attention to the details on Obsoletes/Provides, which
causes a mess. I would like to get someone to review those changes so
this is caught before the package is built/pushed. Thats all.
kevin