Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (1134 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Calling for a new openSUSE development model
  • From: Jos Poortvliet <jos@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:57:53 +0200
  • Message-id: <1576967.nyTZe3vbKP@linux-6upc>
On Friday 15 June 2012 01:22:14 Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 06/15/2012 12:36 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am 14.06.2012 21:32, schrieb Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar:
But don't expect that one person can fix all the rest because he's
updating one package... you might loose that one contributor taking
care
of a few packages and being willing to help fix others, if he feels
he's
*responsible* for all the other failings.

That's actually a very big point here. We already lost contributors
because factory-auto does some checks now that require to clean up your
spec file.

Well, I do not necessarily feel bad about this. Yes, sometimes the
checks in OBS can be annoying, but when the package passes all the
checks one ends up with a package that is of reasonable quality. If
someone cannot muster the energy to work through the issues I have to
wonder whether or not they really want to maintain the package.

Also, more barrier means more sense of accomplishment. More smaller steps
(the automated tests and checks) means even more of that so this is not bad,
rather good even, I would say.

Now to be honest, our main goal should be to have fun. But
this fun applies to all parts, so while it should be fun to update
packages (at least to those that can take fun out of it - we're a
special kind :), it also has to be working well enough for those that
use it.

And I agree. If you can't update glib to the latest upstream version
because xteddy maintainer won't act on your mails, fun stops and you
take some other activity to spend your work time on. But that's why
my first and (so far undoubted) idea was to have more people working
on all packages. And these guys then have to fix xteddy to make this
whole process work.

I agree, more people at the integration level would be great. However,
with the current maintainer model and the way things are presented we
would add more people as "maintainers" to each package and the "there
are 20 other people to accept the SR" and "there are 20 others to fix
the problem" mind set that comes along with very long lists of package
maintainers will only be perpetuated.

Later,
Robert
< Previous Next >
This Thread