[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR

Sam Hartman writes ("Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR"):
> [Ian's proposal]
> >        It is also for maintainers of
> >   non-default init systems, and the surrounding community, to decide
> >   what level of compromised functionality is acceptable to users of
> >   non-default init systems.
> Every time I read that, I hear that the non-default init system
> community wants to be able to block other people's work until they are
> satisfied that the level of functionality is not too compromised.

That is the opposite of what I intend.  (Or, maybe, the converse.)

> My understanding is that you are not actually trying to do that.
> So, if you are not trying to block other people, but instead are trying
> to avoid having non-default init users blocked can we find wording that
> is more clear?

Obviously this part needs to be reworded if it can be misunderstood so

The patterns I am trying to address with this are things like:

 * Vague RC bug reports against pieces of the non-systemd ecosystem,
   which do not actually describe a particular bug, or an approach
   acceptable to the submitter, and are therefore unresolvable.
 * Maintainers of key packages declining to relax strong dependencies
   on systemd components on the grounds of fairly marginal differences
   in functionality when a non-systemd alternative is chosen.

 * Declining to accept init scripts, or arguing against the inclusion
   of init scripts, on the grounds that they should be properly tested
   by the maintainer and the author doesn't consider testing them to
   be a good use of time.

 * In general, blocking the work of non-systemd contributors on the
   grounds that the arrangement that the non-systemd contributors are
   trying to create for non-systemd users is somehow suboptimal or
   broken, in the opinion of the systemd-supporting gatekeepers (be
   that maintainers, members of the release team, or anyone else).

It is really unfortunate, but I have seen multiple examples of each of
the first three specific patterns above.  IMO we must address this.

How about:

  Maintainers of systemd components, or other gatekeepers (including
  other maintainers and the release team) sometimes have to evaluate
  technical contributions intended to support non-systemd users.  Such
  contributions should be accepted, even if they are or may be of
  compromised quality, if the quality/risk is acceptable to the
  maintainers of non-default init systems and the surrounding


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: