[Exherbo-dev] BUGS_TO discussion
alex at grokalex.com
Fri Sep 16 17:11:43 BST 2011
zlin and I got into a discussion about BUGS_TO on IRC, prompted by the plymouth exheres being out of date. Below is a (cleaned)
The gist is that what the BUGS_TO field currently means is not at all clear. As a community, it's probably true that we wish to avoid the
Gentoo bureaucracy of a split between devs/maintainers and users, so we want people to come to the community in general with
questions/comments about packages which then anyone interested can answer. It seems to me that perhaps BUGS_TO -- in the absence
of active Bugzilla use -- is more meant to indicate a first point of contact for a package (or different points of contact depending on the
features of the package) and so should perhaps be renamed to CONTACT.
<parcha> kimrhh: Looks like it hasn't been touched since February... by spoonb (Brett), who doesn't seem to be online...
<kimrhh> parcha: ok, he is not here so often anymore unfortunatly
<parcha> kimrhh: Yeah, I haven't seen his name around for a long time. I'll send an e-mail asking about it.
<kimrhh> parcha: just make a patch for the newest release then
<parcha> kimrhh: Well, if he hasn't been around in a long time, then the whole package is probably unmaintained. We should at the very
least note that and take his e-mail off (if he doesn't want to deal with it), no?
<kimrhh> parcha: it doesn't work like that :)
<kimrhh> parcha: there is not really "maintainers" in Exherbo
<kimrhh> everybody fixes stuff when it is needed
<parcha> I get that... (Though I'd argue that in your personal repo, even added to summer, you're the "maintainer".) I'm just wondering if
it's alright to keep uninterested people under BUGS_TO
<kimrhh> i don't think we care that much about BUGS_TO tbh
<kimrhh> if you want to take over "maintaining" it, i see no problem in adding you to BUGS_TO instead
<kimrhh> others please correct me if i'm wrong
<parcha> Hey, I'm not volunteering, necessarily. ;) Goodness knows I've plenty of things I want to change/add to Exherbo but haven't the
<parcha> I feel if as a community we've started not caring about BUGS_TO, we should probably update the exheres spec to reflect it.
<SuperHeron> kimrhh: is BUGS_TO really relevant for personal repos?
<kimrhh> well, since spoonb has not officially left, I don't see a problem in keeping him in BUGS_TO
<zlin> start by looking if there was a release when that scm package was added
<zlin> pretty sure there wasn't
<parcha> SuperHeron: It isn't a personal repo.
<kimrhh> and definetly not when there is noone to take over
<parcha> zlin: Yes, there was.
<kimrhh> SuperHeron: well, the exheres could be moved
<parcha> kimrhh: Yeah, BUGS_TO will remain as-is for it.
<zlin> we never intended for BUGS_TO to imply ownership
<parcha> zlin: OK. So what should we take it to be?
<parcha> zlin: First point of contact?
<zlin> someone you can talk to about it
<zlin> if he's around
<parcha> zlin: Right, right. OK. So then maybe we should rename it? CONTACT, maybe?
<zlin> I think wulf also uses it to mark packages he checks on weekly
<zlin> if you feel strongly about it mail the list
<zlin> when we added it we probably expected we'd use bugzie a lot more than we do
<parcha> zlin: It's more of a minor detail, but if we want to be perfectionists (about the specs anyway), we might collectively care. ;)
<parcha> zlin: Ah, OK.
<parcha> zlin: Actually, is there an exheres channel?
<parcha> zlin: Or is the list the main venue for foundational discussions (however trivial)?
<zlin> any important changes should either be discussed on the list or informed about on the list :p
<zlin> sometimes we just take discussions on irc
<zlin> when the answer is easy
<zlin> given that spoonb said he'd return two months ago and still hasn't I wouldn't really mind removing him from BUGS_TO either
<parcha> OK, so then should trivial foundational (e.g. exheres spec) discussions be OK for IRC and then notification on the list? I feel it'd
be perhaps silly to swamp the list with small things.
<parcha> Well, I agree with kimrhh, that having someone in the BUGS_TO would be good... But you're right that he hasn't been around
for a long time... So maybe we should go ahead and remove the BUGS_TO for it?
<zlin> the spec isn't really clear on what BUGS_TO means atm and I have no idea how to make it so
<zlin> so if we want to solve that I don't think the answer is easy
<zlin> hence the list is probably easier to discuss it on
<parcha> Thankfully, I don't think Exherbo has gotten big enough to where we'd need to codify how long you would be inactive before
you're removed from BUGS_TO. Y'know. The whole Gentoo bureaucracy. @_@
<parcha> zlin: Right. List it is, then.
<zlin> it's not about inactive people. it's about what putting someone in BUGS_TO really means.
<zlin> the name implies you should assign bugs relating to a package to whoever's in it. but we encourage people to not use bugzie
unless we request it.
More information about the Exherbo-dev