diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016707.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016707.html | 245 |
1 files changed, 245 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016707.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016707.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..733ac2c52 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016707.html @@ -0,0 +1,245 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Collaboration policy + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Collaboration%20policy&In-Reply-To=%3C4FE33C24.9040404%40colin.guthr.ie%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016661.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="016579.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] Collaboration policy</H1> + <B>Colin Guthrie</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Collaboration%20policy&In-Reply-To=%3C4FE33C24.9040404%40colin.guthr.ie%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Collaboration policy">mageia at colin.guthr.ie + </A><BR> + <I>Thu Jun 21 17:22:12 CEST 2012</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016661.html">[Mageia-dev] Collaboration policy +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016579.html">[Mageia-dev] Collaboration policy +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16707">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16707">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16707">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16707">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>'Twas brillig, and Per Øyvind Karlsen at 20/06/12 02:05 did gyre and gimble: +><i> 2012/6/18 Colin Guthrie <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">mageia at colin.guthr.ie</A>>: +</I>>><i> 'Twas brillig, and Olivier Blin at 14/06/12 22:25 did gyre and gimble: +</I>>>><i> David Walser <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">luigiwalser at yahoo.com</A>> writes: +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> Olivier Blin <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">mageia at ...</A>> writes: +</I>>>>>><i> Crediting patchs from others by only mentionning the source +</I>>>>>><i> (i.e. Mandriva, Fedora, XBMC, ...) is not enough IMHO. +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> If we want to give proper credits, we should also mention the author of +</I>>>>>><i> the patch. +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> It doesn't say we don't give credit to the patch author. It just says in our +</I>>>>><i> package changelog (a.k.a. our SVN commit messages), you mention where you got +</I>>>>><i> the patch from, because at that level you want to be concise and that's a much +</I>>>>><i> more useful piece of information. +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> It says that we prefer to mention "source" over "author". +</I>>>><i> That's not good enough IMHO if we want to be ok with credits. +</I>>>><i> The "source" is not the one retaining the copyright on a change, only +</I>>>><i> the author owns this. +</I>>>><i> And mentionning an author's name is the minimum reward when +</I>>>><i> cherry-picking a change. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Well IMO, this is a trade off that relates to practical usefulness. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> The options for the commit message are: +</I>>><i> 1. Mention the source +</I>>><i> 2. Mention the author +</I>>><i> 3. Mention both source+author +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> IMO 3 is too verbose for package changelogs, but I agree it would be +</I>>><i> nice to be able to do this if it were made concise. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> I also think that 2 is not ideal as this would then make it harder to +</I>>><i> record the source. We'd either have to write a comment in the spec above +</I>>><i> the PatchNN: line or put something into the patch itself to indicate the +</I>>><i> source. This is typically a good idea anyway (I try to put any fedora +</I>>><i> patches etc. in their own little section of the spec). If patches are +</I>>><i> generated from git then you don't really want to add unmanaged extra +</I>>><i> info in the patch file as when it is regenerated, this information would +</I>>><i> be lost. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> The opposite is not true - if option 1 were picked, then the author +</I>>><i> would typically be included already in the patch itself if it is a git +</I>>><i> formatted patch. I accept this is not always the case, so this isn't a +</I>>><i> fool-proof alternative. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> So, in the end, I'm not against mentioning the author directly in commit +</I>>><i> messages, but I think it's somewhat impractical and thus it is my +</I>>><i> opinion that it should not be in the message. +</I> +><i> Then you're mixing two different things, this thing was about credting +</I>><i> authors, right? +</I> +It's not solely about crediting individual authors. It's designed to be +a set of guidelines for working with other groups as well as other +people. It's certainly not set in stone and there are other opinions on +the topic than mine, so I don't want my general take on things to be +seen as anything concrete. + +It's also important to note the distinction between two classes outlined +in the document: packages and software. These have to be handled +different and each treated on with their own set of rules (albeit +governed by the same general principles overall). + +><i> But now you're replacing it with practical value in changelogs, which +</I>><i> is an entirely different issue about a totally different subject! +</I> +I agree it would be different if the subject were specifically about +"crediting authors" but it's not. I guess the subject is best summed up +as "collaboration guidelines". There are obviously huge crossovers +there, but there is a distinction and practicalities have to factor too +if people are to be expected to follow it. If it takes ten minutes to do +a complex report on authorship before committing a simple fix, it's +clearly not going to win much favour! + +><i> If you want to actually credit the person doing the work, then you +</I>><i> need to credit the actual authors of the work itself, a distribution +</I>><i> is certainly not what to be creditting itself for the work done by +</I>><i> others, they were the ones who put the distribution together, not the +</I>><i> distribution who put them together (lacking consciousness, thus no +</I>><i> assurance needs to fill, desire for recognition not possible). +</I> +Well it somewhat depends on how you look at it I think. I don't +necessarily disagree with your statements, but if I look at Fedora's +git, Mandriva's svn or the (horrible) bundle of patches that is the +Ubuntu/Debian diff thingy, then I'm benefiting from the fact that the +distro has collected these fixes and made them available conveniently +for me (with various values of "convenient" with the deb patches!). +Likewise if I simply search a mailing list of an upstream project should +I not credit them for proving a known, easy location for me to find such +fixes? + +Perhaps not, but I certainly appreciate the effort that Fedora et al go +to in this regard and find it a massively useful resource for me when +I'm fixing bugs and hacking on things. + +I guess you could argue that you should credit the individual packager +inside Fedora for their work in collecting it together rather than the +generic entity, but again, I personally feel that I am representing +Mageia when I do my packaging and if I manage to unearth a patch from +somewhere and include it in a Mageia package and a Fedora packager sees +that and subsequently uses it, I'm more than happy for this work (of +finding, applying and testing the patch) to be credited generically +under the "Mageia" project (and again, this isn't just about credit, +it's also leaving an audit trail for the future). + +><i> If you're going to push this argument a bit further, for anything else +</I>><i> of software in the distribution that we've packaged with it, neither +</I>><i> would the authors of this software be the ones to be creditted for +</I>><i> their work, but rather the distribution carrying it! +</I> +I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. + +Typically, in any given package shipped, the individual authors who +contributed code to the (upstream) project are not included in the +(downstream) package changelog. In most software the upstream project +is, by definition, referenced in the software name itself. I would +suggest that any individual who contributed code to the upstream project +does not expect to be named explicitly in any downstream changelog of +the builds of that project (after all that's what the traditional +AUTHORS file that is typically included in the package if for), but +rather accepts that the name of the software itself represents them and +their contribution to it. + +In this regard, I see the same being true when taking a patch from +Fedora or Mandriva - i.e. credit the "upstream" generically (I use +"upstream" in quotes here as if I take a patch that is only available in +a fedora package for e.g. systemd, then fedora is the effective +"upstream" for this particular change - perhaps "sidestream" is the +better term?) + +So think of this point as a log of "where I, as a packager, got this +from" rather than anything that explicitly credits individuals. Of +course you may want to follow the chain a little to see if Fedora got it +from somewhere first etc. and if so I think that's fine. + +As stated previously however, it is highly desirable to have the actual +author listed inside the patch itself. Git makes this nice and easy and +I don't want to de-emphasis this part of the process. + +Again, this is just my opinion and take on things - it's certainly not +gospel. + +><i> So if in Mandriva, we'd actually were to fully recognize your +</I>><i> arguments adopt this policy which you propose for Mageia iin Mandriva +</I>><i> again, we'd have to start mess with all the rest of the software we +</I>><i> ship to make sure that it credits Mandriva as we're carrying their +</I>><i> work +</I> +As above, I'm not really sure what you'd need to change if Mandriva +adopted a similar set of guidelines. AFAICT all that would be needed is +to ensure that commit messages on packages referenced any "sidestream" +you happened to use. Can you clarify a bit here so I can understand +properly? (or did you maybe mean Red Hat rather than that last reference +to Mandriva above because Mand[riva|rake] was originally based on it?) + +Perhaps there is a context problem here too. Are you talking primarily +about package svn commits here (and thus changelogs) or software +repository commits? + +><i> And while I myself actually don't wanna meddle in Mageia's businiss +</I>><i> (despite mine being meddled in first), I *really* don't think Mageia +</I>><i> should do so either.. +</I> +I don't consider this meddling personally. I value your feedback here, +but I don't fully understand some of your arguments so any +clarifications you can provide would be appreciated. + +Cheers + +Col + +-- + +Colin Guthrie +colin(at)mageia.org +<A HREF="http://colin.guthr.ie/">http://colin.guthr.ie/</A> + +Day Job: + Tribalogic Limited <A HREF="http://www.tribalogic.net/">http://www.tribalogic.net/</A> +Open Source: + Mageia Contributor <A HREF="http://www.mageia.org/">http://www.mageia.org/</A> + PulseAudio Hacker <A HREF="http://www.pulseaudio.org/">http://www.pulseaudio.org/</A> + Trac Hacker <A HREF="http://trac.edgewall.org/">http://trac.edgewall.org/</A> + + +</PRE> + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016661.html">[Mageia-dev] Collaboration policy +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016579.html">[Mageia-dev] Collaboration policy +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16707">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16707">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16707">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16707">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + +<hr> +<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list</a><br> +</body></html> |