On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 1:55 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:26:37AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 18/12/2024 22:59, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
> > > What I'd like to see is to remove provenpackagers, do everything through
> > > PRs and have a separate SIG/
* Vít Ondruch [19/12/2024 10:51] :
>
>
> Where is the new Peter learned from his
> previous mistakes?
I believe this is the reverse of what should happen. The onus is on
others to show that Peter current use of his proven packagers abilities
is reckless, harmful
I don't want to contribute much to this discussion because I have not done any packaging
for over 15 years and I never did packaging for Fedora, and since I am currently
overwhelmed with other work, I also couldn't read all posts thoroughly. However, even if
my perspective on packaging and such
Dne 19. 12. 24 v 11:46 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:51:30AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 18. 12. 24 v 22:21 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 02:28:09PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
This is not recent example, but really bad example of PP's work IMHO:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:51:30AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 18. 12. 24 v 22:21 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 02:28:09PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > > This is not recent example, but really bad example of PP's work IMHO:
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ru
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 11:31 Richard Hughes via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 09:51, Vít Ondruch
> wrote:
> > PP should lead by example IMHO. And and this is not any different!
> >
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tiktoken/c/66a5632ba66
On Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 09:51, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> PP should lead by example IMHO. And and this is not any different!
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tiktoken/c/66a5632ba66ed27b6d1d633592724d6be612d638
I guess I'm also as bad as Peter then:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpm
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 9:26 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 18/12/2024 22:59, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
> > What I'd like to see is to remove provenpackagers, do everything through
> > PRs and have a separate SIG/group that can fast-track and merge any PR.
>
> Not an option because when w
Dne 18. 12. 24 v 22:21 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 02:28:09PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
This is not recent example, but really bad example of PP's work IMHO:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/c31c7edb6913eb7417ee68c59997548df2943dde
I do not think nitpicking over
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:35:52AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 19. 12. 24 v 9:55 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:26:37AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 18/12/2024 22:59, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
> > > > What I'd like to see is to remove provenpack
Dne 19. 12. 24 v 9:55 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:26:37AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 18/12/2024 22:59, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
What I'd like to see is to remove provenpackagers, do everything through
PRs and have a separate SIG/group that can fast-tr
On 19/12/2024 09:55, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
For these situations IMHO it would be better if we did not need to have
provenpackagers trigger the rebuilds. We should have a fully automatable
way for*any* package to trigger a rebuild of dependent things.
Fully agree. For example, OBS can automa
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:26:37AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 18/12/2024 22:59, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
> > What I'd like to see is to remove provenpackagers, do everything through
> > PRs and have a separate SIG/group that can fast-track and merge any PR.
>
> Not an option becaus
On 18/12/2024 22:59, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
What I'd like to see is to remove provenpackagers, do everything through
PRs and have a separate SIG/group that can fast-track and merge any PR.
Not an option because when we update some important libraries, we need
to rebuild more than 50 packages.
On Wednesday, 18 December 2024 at 20:15, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 02:28:09PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[...]
> > This is not recent example, but really bad example of PP's work IMHO:
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/c31c7edb6913eb7417ee68c59997548df2943d
On Thu, 2024-12-19 at 00:31 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> I don't understand what was the goal exactly of making this a public
> announcement rather than just notifying the decision to the affected
> person. And I also don't understand what was the hurry to do it
> before
> having a publ
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 at 22:35, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Oh, one additional item I wanted to mention...
>
> I wonder if we could encourage maintainers/community members to do
> something like this:
> https://cassidoo.co/post/remote-intros/
>
> TLDR: a small page listing your contact prefs, timezones, e
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 7:22 PM Al Stone wrote:
>
> On 16 Dec 2024 08:08, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 at 20:33, Josh Stone wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee
> > > (FESCo) met in a private meeting to discuss whether Fedora contri
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 11:35 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> Oh, one additional item I wanted to mention...
>
> I wonder if we could encourage maintainers/community members to do
> something like this:
> https://cassidoo.co/post/remote-intros/
>
> TLDR: a small page listing your contact prefs, timezone
Oh, one additional item I wanted to mention...
I wonder if we could encourage maintainers/community members to do
something like this:
https://cassidoo.co/post/remote-intros/
TLDR: a small page listing your contact prefs, timezones, etc.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
_
On 12/18/24 8:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Since I have not chimed in on this yet, let me just say that I am deeply
sorry how the communication/timing/process went here. At the least I
should have realized that many fesco members would be already away this
week, so with lack of quorum, it's hard for
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 02:28:09PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> This is not recent example, but really bad example of PP's work IMHO:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/c31c7edb6913eb7417ee68c59997548df2943dde
I do not think nitpicking over _ten year old_ commits is helpful.
--
Matthew
Since I have not chimed in on this yet, let me just say that I am deeply
sorry how the communication/timing/process went here. At the least I
should have realized that many fesco members would be already away this
week, so with lack of quorum, it's hard for fesco as a whole to respond
or take actio
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 02:28:09PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 16. 12. 24 v 23:13 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> >Dne 16. 12. 24 v 7:03 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >>
> >>And based on my experience, I doubt this particular
> >>provenpackager status was stripped based on something like that.
On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 17:33 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> The Fedora Proven Packager Policy[1] reads: “Provenpackagers lend a
> hand
> when help is needed, always with a desire to improve the quality of
> Fedora. Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to
> communicate with owners of a pac
Dne 17. 12. 24 v 14:37 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 at 13:28, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 16. 12. 24 v 23:13 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> Dne 16. 12. 24 v 7:03 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
>>
>> And based on my experience, I doubt this particular provenpackager
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024, 14:37 Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 at 13:28, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>>
>> This is not recent example, but really bad example of PP's work IMHO:
>>
>>
>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/c31c7edb6913eb7417ee68c59997548df2943dde
>>
>
> That was from
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 at 13:28, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 16. 12. 24 v 23:13 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> > Dne 16. 12. 24 v 7:03 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >>
> >> And based on my experience, I doubt this particular provenpackager
> >> status was stripped based on something like that.
> >>
> >
Dne 16. 12. 24 v 23:13 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Dne 16. 12. 24 v 7:03 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
And based on my experience, I doubt this particular provenpackager
status was stripped based on something like that.
Sure, I guess we all agree that the line is fuzzy and probably not
very w
Eduard Lucena writes:
> Discussing things "privately", "internally" and all the words that
> have been used during the conversation, is not in the Spirit of
> Fedora.
While I generally agree with you, there are absolutely some times and
topics that must be discussed in private, especially topics
Dne 16. 12. 24 v 7:03 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
And based on my experience, I doubt this particular provenpackager status was
stripped based on something like that.
Sure, I guess we all agree that the line is fuzzy and probably not very well documented/defined. That does not mean we
use th
Hello FESCo, Peter, Packagers and all,
First of all, I'm not a packager, not even a developer, but as a former
member of Marketing team as a former Council member, I think this is the
time when damage control communication is needed.
Peter:
> I personally think FESCo should be referring the p
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 at 19:42, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 8:11 PM Gary Buhrmaster
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini
> wrote:
> >
> > > In "the spirit of transparency":
> > > FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion i
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 8:11 PM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> > In "the spirit of transparency":
> > FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in
> > the private ticket should be filed, it just hasn't happened yet.
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> In "the spirit of transparency":
> FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in
> the private ticket should be filed, it just hasn't happened yet.
It is unclear, from that statement, whether it was
intended to cre
On 16 Dec 2024 08:08, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 at 20:33, Josh Stone wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee
> > (FESCo) met in a private meeting to discuss whether Fedora contributor
> > Peter Robinson should retain his provenpackager pr
On Monday, 16 December 2024 at 16:25, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> This process does make me worry that I might get suddenly de-pp'ed at
> some point too.
I'm in the same boat; I know I've been guilty of pushing minor build fixes
without asking. I've also touched hundreds of packages over the years
On 16. 12. 24 18:42, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 08:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 10:17 +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
Looking at our guidance
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/
It is very non-specific
"Prior to
On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 08:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 10:17 +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > Looking at our guidance
> >
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/
> >
> > It is very non-specific
> >
> > "Prior to making changes, pro
On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 10:17 +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Looking at our guidance
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/
>
> It is very non-specific
>
> "Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to communicate
> with owners of a package in bu
Peter said:
> some are *ignored*, some *sit for months without action*, others have
outlined this in the thread as well. If there was a way where people
*put a readme* or something with details I believe it would remove a LOT
of the friction. (emphasis added).
I think there is a frustrati
Dne 16. 12. 24 v 2:13 odp. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
If PP status were intended to beonly for the reason given in the original
requests, then it seems to me that in some cases PP status would be something
inherently time limited and thus revoked after the stated reason is satisfied.
That isn'
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 14:08 Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
> I know that these sorts of matters are hard to deal with, but this entire
> thing comes across more as something from the mythological Star Chamber
> than something I would expect from Fedora.
>
> Yes, Peter is hard to get along with at times
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 16. 12. 24 v 11:17 dop. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
> > By all means have personal preferences, but if someone is following
> > documented Fedora procedures that should be considered fine, even if
> > it doesn't align with pers
On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 at 20:33, Josh Stone wrote:
> On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee
> (FESCo) met in a private meeting to discuss whether Fedora contributor
> Peter Robinson should retain his provenpackager privileges. Over the
> last year, multiple private ticket
Dne 16. 12. 24 v 11:17 dop. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
By all means have personal preferences, but if someone is following
documented Fedora procedures that should be considered fine, even if
it doesn't align with personal preferences.
PPs must state why they want PP status [1]. I always tho
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 12:20:06PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 16. 12. 24 11:17, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >"Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to communicate
> > with owners of a package in bugzilla, dist-git pull requests, IRC,
> > matrix, or email."
> >
> > Th
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 12:18:00PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé venit, vidit, dixit 2024-12-16 11:17:35:
> > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 04:49:32PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> [snip]
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I do think we need a bit less ownership and a bit more shared
> > >
On 16. 12. 24 11:17, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
"Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to communicate
with owners of a package in bugzilla, dist-git pull requests, IRC,
matrix, or email."
This is sooo vague & open to interpretation I can easily see how differences
of opin
Daniel P. Berrangé venit, vidit, dixit 2024-12-16 11:17:35:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 04:49:32PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
[snip]
> [snip]
>
> > I do think we need a bit less ownership and a bit more shared
> > responsibility with packaging. For packages which I maintain, I'm
> > happy for
On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 04:49:32PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 03:15:11PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> [...]
>
> I'm a little surprised by Peter's email that he also has little
> insight into why this was done. But I have no reason to believe one
> person over ano
On Saturday, 14 December 2024 at 23:17, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 3:41 AM Gary Buhrmaster
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Stone wrote:
> >
> > > As a result of more than a month of debate in the latest
> > > private FESCo ticket on his conduct, the Com
When I read this e-mail thread subject line I was at first in disbelief.
On 12/13/24 7:33 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
FESCo would like to make this abundantly clear: this decision was not
made lightly, nor without consideration for Peter’s past contributions
to the Fedora Project.
It appears the dec
* Fabio Valentini [14/12/2024 23:17] :
>
> In "the spirit of transparency":
> FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in
> the private ticket should be filed, it just hasn't happened yet.
I don't know that there's much point announcing the decision before
the public tick
On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 11:49 AM Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
> I'm a little surprised by Peter's email that he also has little
> insight into why this was done. But I have no reason to believe one
> person over another in this. I'll just say I've found Peter to be a
> very helpful and trusted pac
On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 03:15:11PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
[...]
I'm a little surprised by Peter's email that he also has little
insight into why this was done. But I have no reason to believe one
person over another in this. I'll just say I've found Peter to be a
very helpful and trusted p
Hi fesco,
Firstly thank you for this email as it actually provides some level of
openness and transparency which wasn't provided in the email you personally
sent me [1] on Friday. It would have been nice to actually be cc:ed on the
email. I was notified by a message from a member of the community
I never had any issue interacting with Peter Robinson so I would love to
see a clarification. Could you point to a specific tickets where he caused
problems so we could consider the outcome?
сб, 14 дек. 2024 г., 02:33 Josh Stone :
> On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Committ
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 3:41 AM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Stone wrote:
>
> > As a result of more than a month of debate in the latest
> > private FESCo ticket on his conduct, the Committee voted – seven in
> > favor, two against – to remove Peter from the pro
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 05:33:10PM -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee
> (FESCo) met in a private meeting to discuss whether Fedora contributor
> Peter Robinson should retain his provenpackager privileges. Over the
> last year, multiple priv
Let me preface by saying that I don't like the entire idea of
provenpackagers and feel that that role should belong to a SIG (either a
relevant SIG to the package, *or* some "package ems" SIG.
On 12/14/24 2:33 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Commi
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Stone wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Stone wrote:
> As a result of more than a month of debate in the latest
> private FESCo ticket on his conduct, the Committee voted – seven in
> favor, two against – to remove Peter from the provenpackager gr
On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee
(FESCo) met in a private meeting to discuss whether Fedora contributor
Peter Robinson should retain his provenpackager privileges. Over the
last year, multiple private tickets have been opened with FESCo
regarding Peter’s packaging
63 matches
Mail list logo
