Re: Re: A patch added to mozc by submit-request 114205

At Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:38:26 +0800,
Marguerite Su wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Marguerite Su <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Takashi Iwai <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> At Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:03:04 +0800,
> >> Weng Xuetian wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Marguerite Su <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> > 2012/4/18 Fuminobu TAKEYAMA <[email protected]>:
> >>> >> Hi, Marguerite Su and M17N maintainers,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I am confused by the big patch for Fcitx added to the mozc package yesterday
> >>> >> without any reviews and discussion.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/114205
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi, ftake,
> >>> >
> >>> > yes, I don't why either, when I created the request, no reviewer is
> >>> > automatically added.
> >>> >
> >>> > only me, and I have no review option but to accept.
> >>> >
> >>> >> My concern is that this patch decrease maintainability of that package.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As you know, Mozc's release cycle is very short.
> >>> >> Who will maintain the patch?
> >>> >> Will Fcitx maintainers (including the patch developer?) release new patch
> >>> >> for every Mozc release?
> >>> >> I cannot think they will do so, as long as I read their website.
> >>> >
> >>> > Fcitx developers and maintainers will do.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think you just see http://code.google.com/p/fcitx/download. actually
> >>> > it's their "release" website. fcitx-mozc is fast developed at
> >>> > https://github.com/fcitx/fcitx-mozc
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> This is why the openSUSE packaging policy says "Ask upstream first", right?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > absolutely right, but this time it's Fcitx upstream developers that
> >>> > asked me to add so.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> It is, however, good news that fcitx support Mozc.
> >>> >> I guess this can be demonstrated by creating separated OBS package like
> >>> >> fcitx-mozc if some header files of mozc are packaged.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > yes, I'm glad to say Mozc users have a third input method to taste.
> >>> >
> >>> > it's not possible I have to say. you know how Mozc is developed and
> >>> > packaged. there's actually no such header file. fcitx in M17N has many
> >>> > derivatives, and it has a not-released-yet fcitx-anthy in
> >>> > home:opensuse_zh. if it could be done that way, it would already be
> >>> > done. I bcc-ed fcitx core developer, and he'll explain that tech thing
> >>> > in detail.
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Anyway, I would like to roll back for now because mozc is now really essential
> >>> >> package for Japanese users.
> >>> >> If the patch is the best solution and users need fcitx support,
> >>> >> shall we add the patch again?
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > Fcitx-mozc is also essential for some group of fcitx Japanese users. I
> >>> > think as packagers we have no obvious reason to drop a successful and
> >>> > well-maintained feature. by adding it, fcitx OBS maintainers will also
> >>> > have to maintain mozc, there're 4 active maintainers on OBS,
> >>> > personally I think it's good to add maintianers to such a essential
> >>> > package.
> >>> >
> >>> > openSUSE is the best distro that fcitx supports. fcitx developers are
> >>> > also on OBS( home:csslayer:fcitx* ). so there's no need to worry the
> >>> > unmaintained thing that early. it really hurts someone's feeling.
> >>> >
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I'm one of the fcitx developer.
> >>>
> >>> For your question:
> >>> Yes, fcitx will release new patch against every new mozc release, it's
> >>> supported by fcitx upstream.
> >>>
> >>> There is several reason that I can't and don't want to make fcitx-mozc upstream.
> >>> 1. mozc is not open developed, though it's open source.
> >>> 2. different release schedule might be conflict with each other, the
> >>> best solution from my point of view is develop outside mozc.
> >>> 3. mozc will not become a standalone library in near future (Though I
> >>> tried to ask them to do so).
> >>>
> >>> For the patch, it only adds new file, and will not break any existing things.
> >>>
> >>> For other distribution, debian and fedora, also include uim-mozc,
> >>> which is not mozc upstream too. Add fcitx-mozc for debian is also on
> >>> the way. They also use the patch in order to get uim compiled, that's
> >>> another reason that I choose to release patch.
> >>>
> >>> For potential users, I don't want to talk about this too much, but
> >>> there are request on Fcitx issue list, for adding Japanese support,
> >>> and anthy development it is said that have moved to mozc, and mozc it
> >>> much more easy to develop (Even must use some special buildsystem).
> >>
> >> OK, so judging from you and Marguerite's comments, we can take the
> >> patch as is for now.  But I suggest to makes easier to strip it off,
> >> e.g. via %if %with_fcitx or such.  Could you resubmit the package in
> >> that way?
> >>
> >
> > I'll try. (because I'm not familiar with conditional builds...
> >
> >> Also, at the next time, please announce or ask on m17n (or
> >> opensuse-factory) ML before doing non-trivial updates like this.
> >> Otherwise it'll surprise people unexpectedly.
> >>
> >> Basically osc submitreq review is the last step, not the first nor the
> >> sole step for integration.  If a new feature is added or a feature is
> >> changed, it should be announced to users publicly on ML beforehand.
> >
> > it's my fault. I don't even know there's a m17n ML before today.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >>
> >> Takashi
> 
> done and I dragged you two into reviewers

Thanks.  But please add chnagelog properly instead of modifying
the existing entry.  It's not good to modify the already published
changelog entry.


Takashi
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]