and again: no bugowner.
Hi, the whole devel:languages:python has **no** bugowner set. Can't file bugs. Can someone please set factory-maintainers as bugowner (unless there's a more suitable one)? Cheers MH -- Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@openSUSE.org telegram: https://telegram.me/lemmy98 irc: [lemmy] on freenode and ircnet obs: lemmy04 gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 10:24 +0200, Mathias Homann wrote:
Hi,
the whole devel:languages:python has **no** bugowner set. Can't file bugs.
Can someone please set factory-maintainers as bugowner (unless there's a more suitable one)?
factory-maintainers is never a suitable bugowner. The maintainers of the project/packagea have to be bug-owners. Cheers, Dominique
Am Montag, 20. September 2021, 11:22:16 CEST schrieb Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 10:24 +0200, Mathias Homann wrote:
Hi,
the whole devel:languages:python has **no** bugowner set. Can't file bugs.
Can someone please set factory-maintainers as bugowner (unless there's a more suitable one)?
factory-maintainers is never a suitable bugowner.
The maintainers of the project/packagea have to be bug-owners.
they aren't. I think it should actually be considered to be a bug to be able to remove the "bugowner" checkmark from all users involved with a package or project without automaticly turning on the bugowner checkmark that is inherited from the parent project. Of course this would also imply that there should be a "default default" bugowner at the very top of the project hierarchy. Cheers MH
Cheers, Dominique
-- Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@openSUSE.org Jabber (XMPP): lemmy@tuxonline.tech IRC: [Lemmy] on freenode and ircnet (bouncer active) telegram: https://telegram.me/lemmy98 keybase: https://keybase.io/lemmy gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 12:51 +0200, Mathias Homann wrote:
Of course this would also imply that there should be a "default default" bugowner at the very top of the project hierarchy.
And this would imply there is a group of people taking care of things which other people (our package maintainers) are normally responsible for. We don't. Package maintainers are responsible for their packages, and packages which are not maintained responsibly get dropped. -- Richard Brown Linux Distribution Engineer - Future Technology Team SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
Am Montag, 20. September 2021, 13:00:17 CEST schrieb Richard Brown:
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 12:51 +0200, Mathias Homann wrote:
Of course this would also imply that there should be a "default default" bugowner at the very top of the project hierarchy.
And this would imply there is a group of people taking care of things which other people (our package maintainers) are normally responsible for.
We don't.
Package maintainers are responsible for their packages, and packages which are not maintained responsibly get dropped.
that might be as true as it can be, but it does not change the fact that right now it is possible for a package to have no bug owner, which should not happen and can in fact be fixed in the OBS software. It could be as simple as making it impossible to remove the last "bug owner" checkmark unless there is one inherited from the project, which in turn would be inherited from the parent project unless there is one xplicitely set. And the default would be setting it to whoever creates a project. Also, there would be an automated process that verifies that the email adresses for maintainer etc etc still work - maybe once every few months would be enough. And then, once all those automatisms have been run and noone wants to step up and take responsibility for the package or project: drop it. cheers MH
-- Richard Brown Linux Distribution Engineer - Future Technology Team
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
-- Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@openSUSE.org Jabber (XMPP): lemmy@tuxonline.tech IRC: [Lemmy] on freenode and ircnet (bouncer active) telegram: https://telegram.me/lemmy98 keybase: https://keybase.io/lemmy gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
On 2021/09/20 04:00, Richard Brown wrote:
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 12:51 +0200, Mathias Homann wrote:
Of course this would also imply that there should be a "default default" bugowner at the very top of the project hierarchy. I think it should actually be considered to be a bug to be able to remove the "bugowner"....
Package maintainers are responsible for their packages, and packages which are not maintained responsibly get dropped.
Maybe if the bug-owner field is removed, the package should be automatically dropped? Either that or make the only way for the bug-owner field to be removed is to remove the package first?
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 05:03 -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
On 2021/09/20 04:00, Richard Brown wrote:
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 12:51 +0200, Mathias Homann wrote:
Of course this would also imply that there should be a "default default" bugowner at the very top of the project hierarchy. I think it should actually be considered to be a bug to be able to remove the "bugowner"....
Package maintainers are responsible for their packages, and packages which are not maintained responsibly get dropped.
Maybe if the bug-owner field is removed, the package should be automatically dropped? Either that or make the only way for the bug-owner field to be removed is to remove the package first?
# osc ls openSUSE:Factory | wc -l 14267 In plain english - there are 14267 packages in openSUSE:Factory # (for i in $(osc ls openSUSE:Factory); osc maintainer -b openSUSE:Factory $i 2>/dev/null | grep "\ \-") | wc -l 7740 Or in other words - there are 7740 packages without bugowner defined. If we dropped all of them, there wouldn't be much of a distribution left... please don't start filing delete requests. Regards, -- Richard Brown Linux Distribution Engineer - Future Technology Team SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
On 2021-09-20 17:13, Richard Brown wrote:
If we dropped all of them, there wouldn't be much of a distribution left... please don't start filing delete requests.
Lets say they get a year to implement it. That wouldn't be so hard, would it? If there's no bugowner by then, drop the package. We did this in RIPE for IP-prefixes and abuse-mailbox. Took about a year to implement. Now you can at least send an email about some network abuse to owner of prefixes. whois -h whois.ripe.net -b 195.135.221.140 -- /bengan
On 9/20/21 5:13 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
If we dropped all of them, there wouldn't be much of a distribution left... please don't start filing delete requests.
I think initial problem got lost in the discussion.
the whole devel:languages:python has **no** bugowner set. **Can't file bugs. **
and while I fully agree that deleting 7k packages is not an option. I
wonder if it really make sense to block bug creation for packages w/o
bugowner keeping in mind that we have 7k packages without bugowner ?
--
Anton Smorodskyi
Am Montag, 20. September 2021, 17:59:26 CEST schrieb Anton Smorodskyi:
On 9/20/21 5:13 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
If we dropped all of them, there wouldn't be much of a distribution left... please don't start filing delete requests.
I think initial problem got lost in the discussion.
the whole devel:languages:python has **no** bugowner set. **Can't file
bugs. **
and while I fully agree that deleting 7k packages is not an option. I wonder if it really make sense to block bug creation for packages w/o bugowner keeping in mind that we have 7k packages without bugowner ?
it definitely reduces the overall number of bugs... /me ducks SCNR MH -- Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@openSUSE.org OBS: lemmy04 Jabber (XMPP): lemmy@tuxonline.tech IRC: [Lemmy] on freenode and ircnet (bouncer active) telegram: https://telegram.me/lemmy98 keybase: https://keybase.io/lemmy gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 17:59 +0200, Anton Smorodskyi wrote:
On 9/20/21 5:13 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
If we dropped all of them, there wouldn't be much of a distribution left... please don't start filing delete requests.
I think initial problem got lost in the discussion.
the whole devel:languages:python has **no** bugowner set. **Can't file bugs. **
and while I fully agree that deleting 7k packages is not an option. I wonder if it really make sense to block bug creation for packages w/o bugowner keeping in mind that we have 7k packages without bugowner ?
There is nothing 'blocking from filing a bug' - just OBS can't assist in pre-filling the form and pre-selecting the bug owner. Anybody is free to still go to bugzilla, file a bug,, and the screening team will pick an assignee based on the maintainers list. Of course, OBS could pick any 'maintainer' at random if no bugowner is defined in a project/package. But it does, essentially, not stop one from filing a bug (it DOES make it less user-friendly though, otoh browsing through OBS to file a bug would never have been my preferred method; other people obviously do things differently) So - to cut this short: I'd recommend to file an issue (on github/openSUSe-open-build-service) to extend the webui to make better guesses - if no bug owner is defined. possibly on maintainers - or allow the screening team as a default fallback bugwoner. Cheers, Dominique
On 2021/09/20 08:13, Richard Brown wrote:
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 05:03 -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
Maybe if the bug-owner field is removed, the package should be automatically dropped? __Either that__ OR make the only way for the bug-owner field to be removed is to remove the package first?
[[ approximating :-) : alias show_num_packages='osc ls openSUSE:Factory | wc -l' alias show_unmaintained_packages='(\ (for i in $(osc ls openSUSE:Factory); do osc maintainer -b openSUSE:Factory $i 2>/dev/null done) | grep "\ \-") | wc -l' ]]
# show_num_packages # in osFactory 14267
# show_unmaintained_packages 7740
So...does that mean something like 46% of the packages in Tumbleweed have owners? or 54% of the packages in TW have someone responsible for them with regards to the release?
If we dropped all of them, there wouldn't be much of a distribution left... please don't start filing delete requests.
I wouldn't know how, TBH, but even if I did, I think the better option might be that the bug-owner has to remove the package from the distribution first, before they can remove themselves from the bug-owner field. I.e. default bug-owner = person responsible for a given package in the distro. If no one wants to be responsible, any longer, then .... But be clear that being responsible might just be check a bug report for validity and forward it upstream w/periodic pulsing... I.e. not really wanting to scare anyone off unnecessarily.
Dne 20. 09. 21 v 10:24 Mathias Homann napsal(a):
the whole devel:languages:python has **no** bugowner set. Can't file bugs.
Can someone please set factory-maintainers as bugowner (unless there's a more suitable one)?
There was supposed to be python-devel@lists.opensuse.org owner, but apparently, OBS Maintainers (admin@opensuse.org) still didn't manage to complete my request. Best, Matěj -- https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mcepl@ceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8 Only two of my personalities are schizophrenic, but one of them is paranoid and the other one is out to get him.
participants (8)
-
Anton Smorodskyi -
Bengt Gördén -
Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar -
L A Walsh -
Mathias Homann -
Mathias Homann
-
Matěj Cepl -
Richard Brown