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
radically.
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
community.
Ian.
--
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: