upload protocol

upload protocol

[Christopher Faylor]

Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
As an uploader, I'd rather not have to scan conversations for clues
for when a package is ready for upload.

I was actually waiting for Jari to send an RFU for the packages that
he'd recently ITP'ed but, now that I think of it, maybe that's not
what we usually do.

I'd like to propose that we always require an RFU.

cgf

Re: upload protocol (Use of GTG?)

[Jari Aalto]

On 2012-10-09 12:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
| Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
| As an uploader, I'd rather not have to scan conversations for clues
| for when a package is ready for upload.

Perhaps appending "GTG" to a end of subject would be all that is
needed to mark the thread finished.

Jari

Re: upload protocol (Use of GTG?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:30:30PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
>On 2012-10-09 12:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>| Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
>| As an uploader, I'd rather not have to scan conversations for clues
>| for when a package is ready for upload.
>
>Perhaps appending "GTG" to a end of subject would be all that is
>needed to mark the thread finished.

I meant to mention that one of my reasons for asking is that I'm very
slowly working on automating the upload process.  I'd rather just scan
for one format of email and not have to look for something else.

I think it also is important that just because someone says "GTG" it
doesn't necessarily mean that the package should be uploaded.  That
really shoulr require the package owner to initiate the action.  IMO.

cgf

Re: upload protocol

[marco atzeri]

On 10/9/2012 6:58 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
> As an uploader, I'd rather not have to scan conversations for clues
> for when a package is ready for upload.
>
> I was actually waiting for Jari to send an RFU for the packages that
> he'd recently ITP'ed but, now that I think of it, maybe that's not
> what we usually do.
>
> I'd like to propose that we always require an RFU.
>
> cgf
>

fine for me

Marco

Re: upload protocol

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Oct  9 12:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
> As an uploader, I'd rather not have to scan conversations for clues
> for when a package is ready for upload.
> 
> I was actually waiting for Jari to send an RFU for the packages that
> he'd recently ITP'ed but, now that I think of it, maybe that's not
> what we usually do.
> 
> I'd like to propose that we always require an RFU.

I have no strong opinion.  I always scan the threads for the magic
GTG incantation anyway.  Whatever everyone prefers is ok with me.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: upload protocol

[Warren Young]

On 10/9/2012 10:58 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?

That's how I thought it always worked.  To my mind, ITP is only a trial 
run, asking experienced packagers to test that everything's okay.  RFU 
is exactly what it says: the request for upload.  ITP followed by GTG 
implies that an RFU is coming shortly, but I agree with Chris, nothing 
should happen until that RFU *does* come.  It gives the packager a 
chance to change something minor brought up in the ITP discussion, for 
example.

As it happens, I think this sort of gun-jumping happened with the 
Doxygen 1.8.0-1 packages.  I gave a GTG with reservations to the ITP, 
several days ago.  David said in the thread he was off working on 
addressing some of those reservations, but then yesterday Corinna 
uploaded from the ITP message.

I'm not regretting my GTG.  I thought the packages were at least no 
worse than my 1.7.4-1 packages that David's packages replace.  But, I 
think David was expecting a second chance before sending the RFU.

Re: upload protocol

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 03:31:51AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>On 10/9/2012 10:58 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
>
>That's how I thought it always worked.  To my mind, ITP is only a trial 
>run, asking experienced packagers to test that everything's okay.  RFU 
>is exactly what it says: the request for upload.  ITP followed by GTG 
>implies that an RFU is coming shortly, but I agree with Chris, nothing 
>should happen until that RFU *does* come.  It gives the packager a 
>chance to change something minor brought up in the ITP discussion, for 
>example.
>
>As it happens, I think this sort of gun-jumping happened with the 
>Doxygen 1.8.0-1 packages.  I gave a GTG with reservations to the ITP, 
>several days ago.  David said in the thread he was off working on 
>addressing some of those reservations, but then yesterday Corinna 
>uploaded from the ITP message.
>
>I'm not regretting my GTG.  I thought the packages were at least no 
>worse than my 1.7.4-1 packages that David's packages replace.  But, I 
>think David was expecting a second chance before sending the RFU.

Thanks for the real world example.  That is exactly the kind of thing I
was talking about.

cgf

Re: upload protocol

[David Stacey]

On 10/10/12 10:31, Warren Young wrote:
> As it happens, I think this sort of gun-jumping happened with the 
> Doxygen 1.8.0-1 packages.  I gave a GTG with reservations to the ITP, 
> several days ago.  David said in the thread he was off working on 
> addressing some of those reservations, but then yesterday Corinna 
> uploaded from the ITP message.
>
> I'm not regretting my GTG.  I thought the packages were at least no 
> worse than my 1.7.4-1 packages that David's packages replace. But, I 
> think David was expecting a second chance before sending the RFU.

Yes, I was a little surprised when my doxygen package was uploaded! I 
had made the changes that Warren suggested, and I sent another [ITP] 
message last Thursday (4 Oct 2012):
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2012-10/msg00021.html

As a newbie, I didn't know whether to wait for more comments, or to 
submit a [RFU] (as I'd been given a GTG) - maybe someone would be kind 
enough to clarify this. But before either could happen, the package got 
uploaded anyway! But to repeat: the package that was uploaded included 
the suggestions that Warren made.

Cheers,

Dave.

Re: upload protocol

[Warren Young]

On 10/10/2012 11:46 AM, David Stacey wrote:
>
> As a newbie, I didn't know whether to wait for more comments, or to
> submit a [RFU] (as I'd been given a GTG)

All of the discussion was questions of whether, not how or why.  So, I 
think you should have just made the changes you wanted to make, and 
RFU'd the result.  There was pretty much no way you could have lost the 
GTG status.

But whatever, it all came out okay.

Re: upload protocol

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Oct 10 18:46, David Stacey wrote:
> On 10/10/12 10:31, Warren Young wrote:
> >As it happens, I think this sort of gun-jumping happened with the
> >Doxygen 1.8.0-1 packages.  I gave a GTG with reservations to the
> >ITP, several days ago.  David said in the thread he was off
> >working on addressing some of those reservations, but then
> >yesterday Corinna uploaded from the ITP message.
> >
> >I'm not regretting my GTG.  I thought the packages were at least
> >no worse than my 1.7.4-1 packages that David's packages replace.
> >But, I think David was expecting a second chance before sending
> >the RFU.
> 
> Yes, I was a little surprised when my doxygen package was uploaded!
> I had made the changes that Warren suggested, and I sent another
> [ITP] message last Thursday (4 Oct 2012):
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2012-10/msg00021.html
> 
> As a newbie, I didn't know whether to wait for more comments, or to
> submit a [RFU] (as I'd been given a GTG) - maybe someone would be
> kind enough to clarify this. But before either could happen, the
> package got uploaded anyway! But to repeat: the package that was
> uploaded included the suggestions that Warren made.

Sorry for having been too quick.  Usually I upload what's branded GTG
and since your new package was just a minor tweak I didn't see any
problems.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat