#531 Orphaned package ownership claiming clarification
Closed None Opened 11 years ago by akurtakov.

= Proposal topic =

Re-review is required when claiming package that is orphaned and hasn't been modified in more than 3 months.

= Overview =

If you claim a package that is orphaned you can freely get it into pgkdb, push updates and new versions but you still need to request a review if it wasn't modified in the last 3 months even though it might have been orphaned a few days back. This is pretty much the same as the Merge reviews which are in bugzilla for years and noone will even try to finish this reviews not to mention that one can just take the package and we won't notice at all.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665544 for details.
Last change date:Aug 11 2009
Orphaned since: October 28 2010

= Problem space =

Not cluttering our bugzilla queries even more.

= Solution Overview =

Require re-review only for packages that has been orphaned for more than 3 months(not 3 months since last change) and deprecate packages after being orphaned for 3 months so packagers can't freely take them without re-review.

= Active Ingredients =

Packagers.


Adding meeting keyword.

The intent here was to require re-review for things that had not been touched by a maintainer in a while, since that maintainer may not have been paying attention for some time, and the package may need some work.

Also, for orphans/retire we have that happening each cycle in order to give time to have people pick them up, etc.

So, yeah, we should clarify the policy.

Would you be willing to write up a proposed guideline draft wiki page for this?

FESCo would like to setup a script that auto blocks and retires packages after 3 months.

Leaving this open to track that work.

Who is in charge of implementing this?

Good question. I was meaning to file a ticket and ask pkgdb folks how hard this would be.

Would anyone else like to take lead in this? Otherwise I can try and get to it.

Replying to [comment:2 kevin]:

FESCo would like to setup a script that auto blocks and retires packages after 3 months.

Leaving this open to track that work.

I'm slightly opposed to this. There are packages in the repository that don't see updates as often as every three months (ding-libs is one). The only time ding-libs gets updated is during a mass-rebuild, because no bugs have been reported against it in a long time.

Replying to [comment:5 sgallagh]:

Replying to [comment:2 kevin]:

FESCo would like to setup a script that auto blocks and retires packages after 3 months.

Leaving this open to track that work.

I'm slightly opposed to this. There are packages in the repository that don't see updates as often as every three months (ding-libs is one). The only time ding-libs gets updated is during a mass-rebuild, because no bugs have been reported against it in a long time.

I think we are speaking about orphaned packages only.

Sorry to have dropped the ball on this one. ;(

Yes, we are only taking about orphaned packages here, and only in rawhide.
We do have a process that happens once a cycle right before branching where we try and get owners for any orphaned packages, and if not found, they are blocked and marked depreciated in pkgdb for rawhide and the new branch (we don't want orphans going into a new release).

So, for this we have several choices:

a) Just stick with the per cycle process above, and say: "If a package is in orphan state in pkgdb, feel free to take it and revivie it, no re-review needed. If it's depreciated, you must re-review and get admins to unblock it, etc"
This means a min time of 1day or something short (orphaned right before the per cycle cleanup) or a max of 6 months (orphaned right after). This would make the time variable, but it would be pretty clear from pkgdb what state the package was in.

b) We could do the per-cycle cleanup as well as an automated process that blocks packages and moves them to depreciated. This would shorten the above variable time to 3 months at most.

c) we could try and do something fancy about recording the time when a package was orphaned, and if someone clicks take ownership more than 3 months after that it would ask them to go review it.

d) Your better idea here. :)

notting updated docs as per fesco decision on 6-27:

  • 531 Orphaned package ownership claiming clarification (sgallagh,


    17:40:47)
  • AGREED: Policy will change to ""If a package is in orphan state in
    pkgdb, feel free to take it and revivie it, no re-review needed. If
    it's depreciated, you must re-review and get admins to unblock it"
    (sgallagh, 17:49:42)
  • LINK:

closing

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata