Issue #21922 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) wrote in #note-1:

First of all, the title is wrong. Ruby committers can still commit to the default gem repository.

Right, I'll update the title. I reviewed the list, it contains some default gems but most of them are no longer shipped with Ruby 4.0: * `ruby2_keywords`, this is a default gem but Ruby committers can't commit to it. I think either committers should have access or it should have an official maintainer (@nobu). * `pathname`, that's a stdlib in 4.0+. It's a default gem in 3.4 and before though. * `benchmark`, `fiddle`, `irb`, `logger`, `ostruct`, `pstore`, `rdoc`, `readline`, `reline`, `win32ole` were default gems in 3.4 and are bundled gems in 4.0. Some of these have official maintainers but not these: `benchmark`, `pstore`, `readline`. * Similarly for [default gems which became bundled gems in 3.4](https://stdgems.org/new-in/3.4/). * I'm not quite sure what https://github.com/ruby/win32api, it seems an unbundled gem (https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8601#note-12). Does that mean that the policy is: * Ruby committers have write access to default gems as long as those are default gems on ruby/ruby master * Ruby committers don't have write access to bundled & unbundled gems. Is that written somewhere? What's the reasoning behind it? I understand e.g. permissions for publishing a bundled/unbundled gem should be more restrictive, but for merging PRs it seems not problematic and helpful if Ruby committers could do that, same as when those gems were stdlib or default gems. For gems which used to be default gems I think it would be good that Ruby committers still have access, because they are still default gems on actively supported versions like 3.3 & 3.4. Who has access to bundled & unbundled gems then? Only the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization? It doesn't seem ideal to conflate "owner of the Ruby org" and "allowed to merge PRs to gems without an official maintainer". It seems separate roles to me. Wouldn't it be best if Ruby committers could help maintain those gems without an official maintainer, especially for examples I gave in the description? In the current situation it seems to me that @hsbt is the only one merging such PRs to bundled/unbundled gems without an official maintainer. That seems a lot of work for one person, could this be better? ---------------------------------------- Misc #21922: Permissions for committers for default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21922#change-116621 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I noticed recently that the team `ruby-committers` on GitHub no longer has write access to at least: * https://github.com/ruby/benchmark * https://github.com/ruby/cmath * https://github.com/ruby/curses * https://github.com/ruby/dbm * https://github.com/ruby/e2mmap * https://github.com/ruby/gdbm * https://github.com/ruby/getoptlong * https://github.com/ruby/iconv * https://github.com/ruby/mathn * https://github.com/ruby/mutex_m * https://github.com/ruby/net-ftp * https://github.com/ruby/net-pop * https://github.com/ruby/net-telnet * https://github.com/ruby/observer * https://github.com/ruby/pathname (marked as maintained by @akr but they don't reply on GitHub, there is also an unclear relation with core Pathname [which still hasn't been resolved](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/issues/66) and is causing warnings for months) * https://github.com/ruby/prime * https://github.com/ruby/pstore * https://github.com/ruby/readline * https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext * https://github.com/ruby/ruby2_keywords * https://github.com/ruby/scanf * https://github.com/ruby/sdbm * https://github.com/ruby/set * https://github.com/ruby/shell * https://github.com/ruby/syck * https://github.com/ruby/sync * https://github.com/ruby/thwait * https://github.com/ruby/tk * https://github.com/ruby/tracer * https://github.com/ruby/webrick * https://github.com/ruby/win32api * https://github.com/ruby/xmlrpc This list is from a couple cases I noticed myself + [all repos](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/repositories?q=mirror%3Afalse+fork%3Afalse+arch...) - [those committers have access](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/teams/ruby-committers/repositories) - [repos with known maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md)). I filtered manually so there could be some mistake(s), though I tried to check carefully. I am certain CRuby committers had access to some of these repositories (e.g. I merged PRs there), but not sure about all, some might already not have had write access for CRuby committers. It seems only the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization have write access to these repositories. What motivated these changes? I believe it is valuable that all CRuby committers can merge to default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories *without active maintainers*, as it was before. There is [this list](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md) to define maintainers, though it's a little bit outdated and inaccurate. It's fine enough for this issue though. (A better definition IMO for active maintainers would be maintainers would actually respond to PRs and issues on GitHub to these repositories otherwise they are effectively not maintaining that repository, at least from an external perspective.) IOW it seems unreasonable to always have to ask one of the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization to merge a PR to such repositories, as it would be a significant overhead for committers and for owners, and it would delay merging PRs significantly. I'm thinking for example to * documentation PRs ([many for pathname](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/pulls)), which really shouldn't need an owner to merge * PRs to improve/fix the CI ([example](https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext/pull/29)) * PRs fixing compatibility with recent changes in ruby's master branch * etc. Yet another way to see this is many default/bundled/unbundled gems do not have active maintainers. AFAIK so far in such cases then all CRuby committers could help, but this seems no longer the case. (FWIW I saw there a `default-gems-contributor` team with 3 people, which explains why they can merge PRs to some repositories that ruby committers can't for example.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/