Current policy to change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fails_to_build_from_source

We should move this under https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/ too.

Can we get a little clarification on what constitutes a weekly reminder? Is it just a comment on the Bugzilla? Is it an email sent to packagename-owner@fp.o?

I think for any bug that is in NEW at least, there should be some mechanism to reach out to all comainainers via packagename-owner@fp.o in case the default assignee/CC list on Bugzilla contains only lapsed maintainers.

When I drafted this, I've imagined a bugzilla comment (possibly with NEEDINFO).

If we agree that e-mailing is necessary as well, i suppose we could make it one of the steps (e.g. instead of e-mailing every week, only do it after 2 weeks or something like that).

On Tue, 2019-03-19 at 10:43 +0000, Miro Hron=C4=8Dok wrote:

I also think that 8 weeks is too much, but that was taken from the
existing policy and I don't want this to be blocked on discussion
about the time. However I'd appreciate to hear your opinions on this
as well.

I actually don't mind 8 weeks. Sometimes people go on long vacations
(3-4 weeks) so if we made it much shorter they wouldn't have much time
to respond.

Should we demand that the weekly reminders summarize what is
happening if there is no response? Should we demand that this policy
is linked from them if it wasn't already linked?

The current non-responsive maintainer policy I think suffers from some
confusion about what precisely needs to be done. People often have
different interpretations about what it means. Sometimes they file a
dedicated ticket, sometimes they just comment on existing tickets. I
think it would be good if we were clear about what we want to be done
here.

I think the weekly reminder messages could say that the author intends
to have the package orphaned if there is no response.

One question I have though is whether expecting someone to write 8
messages 1 week apart each is too much of a burden? I think I would be
annoyed with having to do that. We do this for nonresponsive
maintainer, but at least it's only 3 weeks. Bugzilla does have a nag
feature for needsinfo, though I don't think it sends out reminders very
often. I wonder if we could use that instead. Or here's a maybe better
idea: what if we have a bot that looks for bugs that block the
FTI/FTBFS tracker bugs and we have it write these weekly reminders on
the tickets? Then the bot could file a releng issue at the end of the 8
weeks. This way humans don't have to carry the burden, and the bot can
put the links to the policy and what not.

On Tue, 2019-03-19 at 12:37 +0000, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

Can we get a little clarification on what constitutes a weekly
reminder? Is it just a comment on the Bugzilla? Is it an email sent
to packagename-owner@fp.o?

I recommend using something public so we can verify that the policy was
followed.

If we made the bot I mentioned above, it could write on BZ and also write the packagename-owner@fpo address.

Or here's a maybe better
idea: what if we have a bot that looks for bugs that block the
FTI/FTBFS tracker bugs and we have it write these weekly reminders on
the tickets? Then the bot could file a releng issue at the end of the 8
weeks. This way humans don't have to carry the burden, and the bot can
put the links to the policy and what not.

Excellent idea. But let's not block the policy on this. Everything about this needs to be automated, but wasn't (in years), so this policy aims at: anybody can follow this now.

Writing robots and releng scripts is good, but we tend to build policies on nonexistent automation. Maybe we even get somebody who writes such robot based on this policy (I certainly might once I do it three times manually).

On Tue, 2019-03-19 at 15:48 +0000, Miro Hron=C4=8Dok wrote:

Excellent idea. But let's not block the policy on this. Everything
about this needs to be automated, but wasn't (in years), so this
policy aims at: anybody can follow this now.
=20
Writing robots and releng scripts is good, but we tend to build
policies on nonexistent automation. Maybe we even get somebody who
writes such robot based on this policy (I certainly might once I do
it three times manually).

Well the requirement in the proposal to have humans remember to do a
weekly task for 8 weeks seems like a burden to me. I wouldn't mind if
we had a bot do that, but I think it might be too much to ask of a
human. What if we relaxed that a bit, if we don't want to require a bot
to do it?

We could make it so you have to write one comment, then 4 weeks later a
second comment, then 4 weeks after that you file the releng ticket and
link it in the original BZ?

I would agree to that relaxing.

How do you decide what FTI?

I was thinking you spin a mock, enable modular repos, install the package in it.

But the definition is not there on purpose. i guess if the package fails to install only if certain conditions are met, an interested party can still open the bug. The maintainer can always work with the reporter to understand those conditions.

just a comment: a tracker like "F30_fails_to_install" is a lot easier to understand for everyone than new acronyms like FTI.

Bugzilla used to at least send a email about needinfo every week. I am not sure if it still does after the upgrade to 5, but we could check that. I think a bug with needinfo that reminded every week should be enough.

I think a bug with needinfo that reminded every week should be enough.

Works for me, but let's check it. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692033

I'll amend the proposal and incorporate the received feedback early next week.

This was discussed during today's FESCo meeting:
ACTION: mhroncok to update the proposal

Any updates here?

@kevin Did you get any NEEDINFO e-mail? @zbyszek suggested on the IRC meeting last week that such e-mails are no longer delivered.

Sadly, I did not, so it seems they are no longer sent. ;(

Too bad really. I can ask bugzilla admins about it...

OK, I'll amend the proposal expecting we can sort things out with bugzilla admins.

If we find out we cannot, it can be amended once more.

I've amended the proposal. tl;dr diff:

• you open the bug
• after 1 week, you set NEEDINFO
• after +3 (=4) weeks, you send e-mail + comment
• after +4 (=8) weeks, the package is orphaned

On Mon, 2019-04-01 at 20:58 +0000, Miro Hron=C4=8Dok wrote:

I've amended the proposal. tl;dr diff:
=20
* you open the bug
* after 1 week, you set NEEDINFO
* after +3 (=3D4) weeks, you send e-mail + comment
* after +4 (=3D4) weeks, the package is orphaned

+1

https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2109#comment-563753 is approved, with one amendment that we add an email to pkg-owner@fp.o at the NEEDINFO step (+8, 0, -0)

I've opened https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/issue/10

I've opened https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8275

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/

BTW I just got a bugzilla needinfo e-mail.