Patch Piloting: how much of the extra mile do you go?

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, July 22, 2011 01:51:47 PM Scott Moser wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > 
> > I'm interested to see how patch piloting works out for you as reviewers
> > and how much the workflows in our team differ.
> > 
> > When I did my shift last week I noticed that a couple of merge proposals
> > had their last comment saying "Would you mind forwarding the patch to
> > Debian/Upstream?" with no activity since. I guess many of us check the
> > bug or merge proposal later on again and dismiss it as something that
> > was already looked at. The problem is obvious: if the contributor has no
> > interest in doing this (or does not know how), it might sit there for a
> > very long time.
> 
> As an example (of something I don't know what to do with), there are
> currently 5 dependent merge proposals in the queue:
>    lp:~pali/ubuntu/oneiric/initramfs-tools/initramfs-tools
>    lp:~pali/ubuntu/oneiric/cryptsetup/cryptsetup
>    lp:~pali/ubuntu/oneiric/lsb/lsb
>   
> lp:~pali/ubuntu/oneiric/kubuntu-default-settings/kubuntu-default-settings
> They're all dependent on:
>  
> https://code.launchpad.net/~pali/ubuntu/natty/plymouth/plymouth/+merge/618
> 97
> 
> The User/developer developed their changes against Ubuntu, because that is
> where they get their software.  To He/She (and I would suspect a *great*
> number of people), it is quite possible that Ubuntu acceptance is really
> all that matters.
> 
> From Ubuntu's perspective, it was the right thing to ask that it be
> submitted upstream to see how they felt about it.  The user went ahead and
> did that, but no-one has responded upstream on the mailing list to the
> post.
> 
> The patches can surely use some work, but I believe that the general goal
> is desirable (even if you disagree, you can imagine a case that would
> be).  It seems quite likely that if the developer does not have help,
> they're quite likely to
>  a.) give up on this patch
>  b.) give up on submitting to Ubuntu
> 
> Should we go the *extra* mile and push on the Upstream, and help to clean
> the patches up and provide doc?
> 
> I don't want to sound like I'm just "Punching the clock", but this series
> of proposals could very easily eat my 4 hour block of piloting.  I think
> that is one reason that people have shied away from it.
> 
> To me, a large value of the Patch Pilot was to give someone a "friend" or
> "champion" in Ubuntu.  This series of patches is in-need of that.

Most core packages (like Plymouth) have (or should have) a usual suspect who 
tends to mind after them.  I think for complex changes like this, that (team 
or person) is who should figure out what to do with this.  I'm not even going 
to bother to look at the kubuntu-default-settings change until the core 
question of Plymouth changes is resolved.  Beyond connecting the patch author 
with the right team/person in Ubuntu to deal with plymouth, I don't think 
patch pilot's should feel like they are responsible for large feature changes 
like this one.

Scott K