Misc #21949: timeout gem maintainers

• Status: Open
• Assignee: -

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

The timeout gem has currently no official active maintainers.
I would like to propose myself and @nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) (see below) as maintainers of the timeout gem.

I basically rewrote the implementation in https://github.com/ruby/timeout/pull/15 and acted as a maintainer since then by reviewing PRs and replying to issues.
I also recently solved all open issues except https://github.com/ruby/timeout/issues/52 (where I have a draft PR to try to solve it and need more time to validate the fix).

Among other recent active contributors I see @nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada), would you like to be maintainer of timeout as well?

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

• Description updated (diff)

[hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)]

• Status changed from Open to Rejected

This is already rejected by Matz at https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/15424#issuecomment-3640875676

Discussing with multiple people means that it is not good for a single implementation maintainer to make the decision alone.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) wrote in #note-2:

This is already rejected by Matz at https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/15424#issuecomment-3640875676

Matz said:

For timeout gem, the remaining issues are too difficult for a single person, IMO.

Hence why this proposal is to have both me and @nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) as maintainers (if @nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) is interested).
@matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) doesn't that address your concern?

Discussing with multiple people means that it is not good for a single implementation maintainer to make the decision alone.

I don't understand what is meant here, could you clarify?
Other gems have multiple maintainers, and there seems to be no problem with it.
Are you saying having no maintainers (or effectively "all Ruby committers but none is recognized as maintainer") is better than having multiple maintainers?

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

• Status changed from Rejected to Open

The timeout gem has no maintainer currently, so let's at least discuss this.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

• Subject changed from timeout gem maintainer to timeout gem maintainers
• Description updated (diff)

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

• Description updated (diff)

[hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)]

• Status changed from Open to Rejected

The fact that Matz is the maintainer means that development is done in agreement with the committers. Also, it would be very rude to say "there is no maintainer" when there is a maintainer's name.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

• Status changed from Rejected to Open

Let me explain my perspective on this:

• I contributed significantly to ruby/timeout by rewriting the implementation to be a lot faster.
• I already acted as a de-facto maintainer by reviewing PRs, triaging and fixing reported issues (some tricky issues which were opened for years).
• I think this deserves recognition as being an official maintainer of the timeout gem (if not, what are the requirements for it?).
• I am happy to have other maintainers for the gem. I think all maintainers should have non-trivial contributions to the gem.

Also regarding:

For timeout gem, the remaining issues are too difficult for a single person, IMO.

I solved these issues (except one, where there is a draft PR), so I have shown it is not too difficult for one person to solve these issues.
There might more meaning to this than the direct meaning though, which I guess matz would prefer to have multiple maintainers, hence the proposal of having me and @nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) as maintainers.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) wrote in #note-7:

The fact that Matz is the maintainer means that development is done in agreement with the committers.

I see, that was/is unclear to me, notably because development of timeout happens on GitHub (not on this issue tracker) and does not seem to require much consensus.
What is the difference in practice with gems listed here as "No maintainer"?

Some other libs like socket have API change needs matz's approval, which is clear (and means API changes need an approved ticket on this tracker from matz).

Also, it would be very rude to say "there is no maintainer" when there is a maintainer's name.

I didn't say that, I said in the first sentence:

The timeout gem has currently no official active maintainers

And this is true in the literal sense, matz himself is not actively maintaining ruby/timeout.

To be extra clear, I mean no disrespect to matz or anyone else.

---

I feel your quick reject without much explanations is rude, though.
Especially when from my POV I think I have addressed matz's concerns.
It feels to me like you're trying to prevent to have a conversation on this.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

I think some misunderstanding here is I interpret matz being listed as the maintainer of timeout as matz historically wrote and maintained lib/timeout.rb, and not* some special meaning.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) wrote in #note-7:

Also, it would be very rude to say "there is no maintainer" when there is a maintainer's name.

Ah I see, you mean https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21949#note-4
I think from the context of this issue and the "currently" it means rather clearly "no official active maintainers".
But if it has been understood differently, I apologize about that.