> On 2 Jun 2017, at 08:15, Fabian Affolter <fabian_at_affolter-engineering.ch> wrote:
> Hi all,
> A while ago I brought this topic up on IRC but I go pretty much ignored.
> Well, my frustration raised again to a certain level ;-)
> It's about the aports and the workflow for people with no write access.
> I like Github's PR approach and to have some kind of QA with Travis.
> Especially if your not always on top of what's changed in AL, switching
> between distributions and their packaging mechanisms, and your build env
> is not always as clean as it should be.
The continuous integration is really nice IMO, and definitely a big upside.
I’m personally a big fan of GitHub PRs for contributions as they significantly
lower the bar for new and continuous contributions.
> There are over 200 open PRs (sure, some are no obsolete in the meantime
> as they are open for over 6 months). I don't how it looks like on the
> alpine-aports mailing list.
Some perspective on this: when I started working on them we steadied them at
around 100. It’s mostly because of the release stuff the past few weeks that
they seem to have jumped much higher. I don’t have much historical data though,
so maybe that lower number was just a fluke. :)
> My problem with the current approach is that I do the work, then nothing
> happens, and at the end it must be discarded because somebody with write
> access commited his/her work directly.
> Sure, one could say that you should keep your hands of packages which
> don't contain your name as maintainer. If that thought crossed your mind
> then...let me stop here before I say something I will regret later about
> community, open source, common goal, etc.
> A fact is that the current state is massively devaluing the work of the
> community and pushing the two class society (write access/no write
> access) further.
I entirely agree with this, and bypassing existing work is somewhat of an
issue and doesn’t do much to help the community. I think maintainers and
developers should be trained to look at existing PRs FIRST, and only then
try to do stuff that scratches their itch themselves.
Otherwise, it just makes Alpine feel like a private club of people doing
their own stuff which you are ~allowed~ to contribute to if they feel
like it, instead of a community, as is intended with the community and
testing repos at the very least.
I’ll admit that the recent release rush has been kind of tiring in the
sense that I did not feel like looking at PRs aside from the other work
that was happening. Maybe there’s room for different tasks there? Maybe
we need to branch 3.6 earlier and work on there, while still being able
to merge new stuff/updates that are too late for 3.6 in edge?
> Just to be clear this is not a one-time thing and I doubt that I'm the
> only one that's affected. Think about how you would feel when we would
> switch places and the only response you will get is "was already done"
> or something similar to that while the time line shows that you did the
> work first.
> Complaining is easy but without complaining there is no progress. As a
> person with write access you may see the whole thing differently but
> change your perspective for a minute and think about how the impact on
> the future of Al could be.
Aside from what I said above, I’d like to see input from others as well
how we could best address this. Now that 3.6 is out of the door, we should
be able to focus more on reviewing and merging contributions again instead
of rushing work to get done in time.
> Kind regards,
Thanks for airing your grievances, I’m sorry that they weren’t properly
heard on IRC. We can only improve as a project by looking critically at
Received on Fri Jun 02 2017 - 10:07:22 UTC