The Modularity WG would like to ask FESCo for comments on the stream branch ownership topic: https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/115
Please, see the linked discussion above. TL;DR: Stream branches should be owned/maintained by whoever is building from them. If it's more than one person or group, they should collaborate. Plus there's no need to retire them explicitly.
I do not follow why retirement is not necessary anymore. Retiring ursine packages consists of these steps/has the following consequences:
At least the dead.package file and requiring the re-review should IMHO still be performed for package stream branches.
If a package stream branch is not used in any module anymore, does this really mean that the resulting RPM packages will be removed from the Fedora repository with the next update?
Also the package ownership is also important in ursine packages for bug reports - how is the bug ownership for module packages configured in Bugzilla? IMHO it is also important that if a stream branch is no longer maintained, that is is reflected in Bugzilla by assigning bugs to the orphan user.
And for ursine packages, orphan packages should be retired if they are orphaned for more than six weeks - does this orphan state exist for stream branches as well or are they either maintained or retired?
I do not follow why retirement is not necessary anymore. Retiring ursine packages consists of these steps/has the following consequences: adding a dead.package file to dist-git with the reason for retirement/removing the original contents to properly indicate that the package is not maintained anymore blocking the package in koji so that it is not distributed anymore in new Rawhide (Branched) releases if a package is retired for more than two weeks, a new review is required At least the dead.package file and requiring the re-review should IMHO still be performed for package stream branches.
adding a dead.package file to dist-git with the reason for retirement/removing the original contents to properly indicate that the package is not maintained anymore blocking the package in koji so that it is not distributed anymore in new Rawhide (Branched) releases if a package is retired for more than two weeks, a new review is required
I could get behind this if you consider it important.
Yes, it does.
Also the package ownership is also important in ursine packages for bug reports - how is the bug ownership for module packages configured in Bugzilla? IMHO it is also important that if a stream branch is no longer maintained, that is is reflected in Bugzilla by assigning bugs to the orphan user. And for ursine packages, orphan packages should be retired if they are orphaned for more than six weeks - does this orphan state exist for stream branches as well or are they either maintained or retired?
The proposal doesn't state this explicitly but it implies stream branches are orphaned and maintainers of modules that include them share the responsibility for the package.
If the package is also ursine, I think it will technically be owned by the ursine maintainer, from Bugzilla's perspective. For stream branch-only packages, those would appear as ursine.
What would you propose?
Metadata Update from @bowlofeggs: - Issue tagged with: meeting
We will discuss this in the FESCo meeting on Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net.
I think I understand one motivation here - when packages are being maintained in a essentially modular fashion, it's annoying to have multiple layers of ownership to deal with.
But I do wonder about the scenario:
When a package has an active maintainer, I'd expect that maintainer to be making the decisions about what is supported and supportable. Maybe instead of having implicit delegation for all stream branches, there should be an explicit mechanism to delegate a stream branch to a module with matching streams - and use that data to detect when another module wants to "tag along" with a stream branch and might need to pick up maintainership.
Please remember to read the proposal and vote in ticket.
From the meeting:
ACTION: @asamalik will update the proposal with 1) mechanics to define branch ownership and 2) explicit module branch ownership as well as explicit package branch ownership
Deferring further discussion to the next meeting
Hence I keep the meeting tag for the further discussion.
Nothing actionable on https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/115
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue untagged with: meeting - Issue tagged with: stalled
Should we close this ticket due to inactivity?
Metadata Update from @sgallagh: - Issue close_status updated to: Insufficient data - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Log in to comment on this ticket.