On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 12:41:51PM +0100, Gunnar Wrobel wrote: > Ok, so this clearly describes a man power problem that currently does > not exist. I know from personal experience that I only have about half > a day for looking at a bug assigned to webapps until Renat wakes up and > fixes it :) But it's clear that the herd should be able to handle the > bugs in case Renat is not around.
We need to be able, yes. Realistically speaking, if I disappear, that would require someone else spending more time on bug-fixing. Nowadays it's not too bad - we're talking maybe 1-5 version bumps and a couple of bugs a week. Is there anyone willing to take on that responsibility? Stuart and I agreed that I will start forwarding all my Gentoo mail to him (and anyone else who's interested) when I leave for the summer to make sure we continue to get release notifications and email from upstream. > Would it be reasonable to try to define two webapps members as primary > maintainers for each of the packages that we select? I believe that > could reduce the effect of looking at a bug and deciding that > "somebody" will certainly fix it. Excellent point. Currently I just assume that if a bug is filed, I'm the person who'll fix it. Are other herd members willing and able to pitch in? > I believe that we should not make the current suggestion for the > security requirements a real requirement for the list of selected > applications but instead just declare them as the desired goal. I'm still unconvinced that security requirements meet a real need. We don't currently have any outstanding security issues (perhaps with the exception of phpBB and mantisbt, both of which have active upstreams yet can't get their act together wrt security, and both are p-masked). > As I mentioned in my last mail, I wanted to be able to have additional > packages in portage that I personally use. The main reason for that > was that I feel that the overlay will never be on the same level as > the tree itself. While it is not extremely complex to use the user > will have to know about it, install subversion, check out a > repository, and modify the make.conf. This is more than what I > consider necessary to tell the user "that this package is less well > maintained / less secure than the packages in the main portage tree". > I guess it will actually prevent a number of people from ever > seeing the package. I say go for it - if you're willing to maintain them yourself and aren't going to create more work for me ;) > In addition I believe some users might not be exactly happy if we > start moving packages out of portage into the overlay. > > So in order to make the process less complex I will provide > "layman". The tool is able to manage gentoo overlays. In order to get > the webapps overlay you run > > emerge layman > layman -f -a webapps-stable -a webapps-experimental > > to get both overlays fetched and added to your make.conf > automatically. To update the repositories you can later run > > layman --sync > > People that want to crash their hard drives can get it from my > overlay: > > layman -f -a wrobel-stable > emerge layman > > :) > > I think this significantly reduces the differences between the overlay > and the tree. As a result my urge to add stuff to the tree would also > be significantly reduced. And I think that moving stuff from the tree > to the overlay would then be an acceptable option. > > For the overlay I would suggest that the "production-stable" branch > should be only accesible to devs and that we handle it the same way as > we currently handle the tree. The "experimental" branch would continue > to be our playground. All great ideas. layman would be great - any idea when you'll release? Have you checked with other devs if they're aware of or are developing something similar? -- Renat Lumpau all things web-apps C6A838DA 04AF B5EE 17CB 1000 DDA5 D3FC 1338 ADC2 C6A8 38DA America - land of the free* *Void where prohibited, restrictions apply. Cash value 1/100c.
pgpZKpO5bpI3b.pgp
Description: PGP signature
