Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2016
[perl #129896] the maintainership/upstream situation of theCwd/File::Spec dist is very unclear
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
James E Keenan via RT
Date:
October 18, 2016 11:49
Subject:
[perl #129896] the maintainership/upstream situation of theCwd/File::Spec dist is very unclear
Message ID:
rt-4.0.24-16356-1476791378-1910.129896-15-0@perl.org
On Tue Oct 18 02:35:16 2016, xsawyerx@cpan.org wrote:
> On Sun Oct 16 11:49:05 2016, walde.christian@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I ran into a bug in Cwd and while trying to figure out who's
> > responsible,
> > who can help with fixing it, where to fix it, and other related
> > facts,
> > i
> > found that the situation of the entire dist is very unclear.
>
> Hi Mithaldu, :)
>
> Let me see if I can help clarify this.
>
>
> >
> > The dist itself still claims Ken Williams is the maintainer.
>
> Yup.
>
>
> > The dist itself on sco and metacpan points at
> > https://rt.cpan.org/Dist/Display.html?Queue=PathTools
>
> I would imagine this grew out of comfort and usage. I'm not aware of a
> rule that says a core module can not have its own RT queue. (I'm not
> being sarcastic or cynical.)
>
>
> > Said page lists FLORA, KJALB, KWILLIAMS, RJBS, SMUELLER as releasers.
>
> Yes. These are people who have released it to CPAN, separate from
> core. We try to have as many modules dual-life as possible, so users
> may reap the benefits of it without having to upgrade their perl.
> These are people who are given the right to make a release of a core
> module outside the core.
>
> This does not make them maintainers or developers of it, as they might
> have been helping out with the release process at any point. On the
> other hand, it's a good hint to know who else is familiar with the
> project.
>
>
> > The RT queue has 69 open tickets (more than resolved), most of them
> > over 3
> > years old old.
>
> That is unfortunate. However, the maintainer(s) (and p5p at large)
> only have few resources available and tickets can pile up. Some of
> them might be esoteric and require additional research, some might
> require additional feedback from the reporter, and some might just be
> lower priority.
>
> Patches are always welcome! :)
>
>
> > The most recent releaser has been RJBS, presumably in his capacity of
> > pumpking.
>
> Yup.
>
> The most recent release (3.62) contained a fix for a security issue
> (CVE-2015-8607), which would require making a separate CPAN release of
> this as well, not to force users to upgrade their perl. RJBS pushed
> that release out.
>
>
> >
> > RJBS claims he doesn't have a lot of expertise to offer.
>
> I would take RJBS at his word. :)
>
> He made the release since it was an important fix that had to be
> released, not because he made the fix and is knowledgeable in the
> project. This goes back to people who have permissions to release
> because they are helping out (or in RJBS' situation - are responsible)
> rather than being intimately familiar with the code.
>
> The fix which resulted in this release was by Tony Cook, just for
> reference. Commit 0b6f93036de171c12ba95d415e264d9cf7f4e1fd.
>
>
> > The official repository according to RJBS is blead in
> > /dist/PathTools.
>
> RJBS is correct. You can see this here:
> http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/tree/HEAD:/dist/PathTools
>
>
> > The committers to that have been a wide variety of perl5porters.
>
> Yup.
>
>
> > Relatedly, the lack of link to source repo, and some confusion about
> > responsibility has also been discussed here:
> > https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=116342
> >
> >
> > As such the questions i ask of p5p is:
> >
> > Is p5p collectively currently the responsible maintainer?
>
> Those are two different questions, unfortunately. "Maintainer" is one
> thing, "responsible" is another.
>
> p5p is the responsible party, but it is not necessarily the current
> maintainer. The maintainer is one or more people, usually from p5p.
>
>
> > If not, who is?
>
> According to the documentation, it's "officially" (as documentation is
> not always up-to-date) Ken Williams. Effectively, I can see several
> people who put work into it, including Dave Mitchell, Father
> Chrysostomos, Tony Cook, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker, Bulk88, and Steffen
> Mueller.
>
>
> > If so, should the ticket queue be moved over to perlbug, and the dist
> > point at perlbug as well?
>
> Not necessarily. As far as I know, a core module is allowed to
> maintain its own RT queue.
Technically, yes -- but ...
> It depends on what the current people
> maintaining it find comfortable.
It's difficult to argue that a CPAN distro whose bug queue has 69 open tickets is being *actively* maintained.
> rt.perl.org maintains a hefty amount
> of tickets
Don't I know! Our New + Open total is 1637 as I write. At one point about three years back we were in the mid-1200s, and we were holding below 1600 until quite recently.
> ... and I can see why maintaining a separate queue can be
> easier.
Here is one possible battle plan:
1. Prepare a new version/release to CPAN which does nothing but change the location for reporting PathTools bugs to rt.perl.org via perlbug. With this, *new* bugs will be reported to the bug queue of the responsible party, i.e., P5P.
2. Given the size of the remaining queue on rt.cpan.org, trying to find just one person to serve as *the* maintainer of PathTools is not likely to be successful. We should instead form a *task force* of people who will work through the existing bug queue. (Precedents: Perl-Toolchain-Gang; the group being assembled to maintain DBIx-Class (hopefully sans acrimony).) This task force would move issues from the older queue to the new one as it deems appropriate and/or as patches are submitted to rt.perl.org.
3. The above presumes the cooperation of the current maintainers/releasors -- who of course may be part of the task force.
4. I recommend that this and other proposals be discussed at the upcoming P5P hackathon Nov 11-14.
Thank you very much.
--
James E Keenan (jkeenan@cpan.org)
---
via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open
https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=129896
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next