Merges - Pinging Previous Uploaders
mantha at ubuntu.com
Sat Jul 14 05:35:59 BST 2007
On Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:09:11PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday 13 July 2007 22:47, Andy Price wrote:
> Right. That's not the problem we've had though. The problem we've had is
> people doing merges right away without bothering to check at all. I've also
> personally experienced significant pushback when I questioned them doing
> that. I disagree that's the clear problem case. The clear problem case is
> people not respecting other people's merges.
Other people's merges? Nobody "owns" anything in MOTU. We are a team. We
take care of Universe and whatever needs to be done. MOTU is the
maintainer, not individuals. If a merge is decently documented then there
should be *no* problem with another MOTU merging it later on for the vast
vast majority of packages. If there is then there's something else going
> > The previous uploader would then be subscribed to the merger's merge bug
> > when it is opened. The previous uploader would then have until a good
> > merge debdiff is attached to the report and u-u-s subscribed (plus an
> > agreed period of time, perhaps?) to veto or control the merge before a
> > u-u-s member could ACK it.
> Why can't they just ask?
Hmmm, why should they have to?
> > Does this sound sane? Or maybe it'd just convolute the process? I look
> > forward to reading your views.
> Unless there is some kind of emergency (e.g. StevenK's heroic efforts during
> the recent libcurl transition fiasco) there's no reason someone who wants to
> do a merge can't send an e-mail and ping someone on IRC. There is enough
> good work to be done in Ubuntu that I can't imagine this being a roadblock
> (hint: plan ahead folks).
> I'd suggest people don't touch other people's merges without asking unless
> there is an emergency. As it gets near freeze time, if MoM and DaD haven't
> moved back into the same house, maybe a wiki page list of merges one
> shouldn't do.
Again, why are they "other people's merges"? With the exception of a very
few cases, that I can think of, there is no reason for people to "own"
merges. It seems to me that it's just added beuracracy and complicates the
whole thing. It can also slow down how fast we get merges done as even a
Hopeful could, in many cases, get a merge uploaded before they would get a
response back). It can also can turn off contributors if they have to
worry about who to ask, how long to wait, etc.
People should be worried about *how* to get a merge done more than *if*
they should do it. Honestly, MOTU is sounding more like a bunch of
independent individuals than a team trying to rock the Ubuntu world. I
think MOTU could face even more serious manpower problems if it continues
to do so.
If we spend more time policing each other than helping each other it's a
big issue. If a MOTU consistently can't be trusted to do a merge (or
sponsor a merge) right then they should not be a MOTU, period. If you have
to consantly keep an eye to make sure a particular person doesn't mess up
a package you're looking after then that person needs to be educated.
At this point I'm much more concerned about having well-trained, motivated,
and team-oriented people who trust each other and help each other than good
QA or the perfect policy.
I'm sorry this is such a downer email. This has been bugging me for a while
and I just haven't been able to put it eloquently or nicely (how I want
it). I love the MOTU community and I want to see it become stronger and
healthier. We owe it to ourselves and to our users.
More information about the Ubuntu-motu