Re: [gentoo-dev] proxy-dev (an alternative to sunrise?)
On Friday 28 July 2006 20:51, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Robert Cernansky wrote: If I have some application that is not included in portage why I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big thanks for this). If I have to take care of package + ebuild + dependencies, I'll rather choose not to make an ebulid but compile package right from .tar.gz archive. Many people disagree with you here, that's why overlays exist. Somebody wants to use Portage to manage ebuilds that aren't yet in the actual tree. I'm one of those. Portage namely is also a package manager allowing what using the tarbal method does not: file tracking and deinstallation. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpr68D6w9f3V.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] last ritest for dev-java/saxon-bin
dev-java/saxon-bin is going to be removed from the tree as soon as the from sources version dev-java/saxon gets marked stable on arches that have saxon-bin stable. I will add a package move and a revision bump so that user will have a smooth upgrade. I will also adjust app-text/jing to work with the from sources version. Regards, Petteri Räty (Betelgeuse) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: proxy-dev (an alternative to sunrise?)
Enrico Weigelt wrote: The gentoo devs currently do much of the upstream's work. Fixing bugs or even adding new stuff which does not directly have to do w/ gentoo should be done exlusively by the upstream. This is not really a problem. Fixing bugs is what I enjoy after all, this is the interesting stuff. Spending hours on one broken build system is far more interesting than writing 100 ebuilds. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] proxy-dev (an alternative to sunrise?)
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 15:50 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Friday 28 July 2006 20:51, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Robert Cernansky wrote: If I have some application that is not included in portage why I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big thanks for this). If I have to take care of package + ebuild + dependencies, I'll rather choose not to make an ebulid but compile package right from .tar.gz archive. Many people disagree with you here, that's why overlays exist. Somebody wants to use Portage to manage ebuilds that aren't yet in the actual tree. I'm one of those. Portage namely is also a package manager allowing what using the tarbal method does not: file tracking and deinstallation. Paul FWIW, my company uses Gentoo and overlays extensively to manage our workstations and testbeds. The packages we have are not suitable for inclusion in portage (for a number of reasons), and we have no intention of ever submitting them. Overlays are a *great* way of customizing a local network of boxes to be different than upstream Gentoo for whatever reason. I, personally, find this to be a more useful function than a place to hold ebuilds not-yet in portage (although, I do that also). -- Daniel Gryniewicz Gentoo AMD64 Team / Gentoo Gnome Herd / Gentoo Kernel Herd / Gentoo Printing Herd AMD64 Operational AT Lead signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Stable Staleness (mostly toolchain)
As the lead for the treecleaner project (team, whatever you want to call it wolf ;) ), I've been trying to fix old broken packages, many have been slated for removal, some have had minor fixes, and others are still setting waiting for me to get some free time. Another class of packages I wish to discuss (not remove quite yet, just talking ;) ) are older packages with stable markings. By Stable I mean debian stable, IE we stabled it in 2004 and no one has touched it since. Do these packages still work with a current system (linux 2.4/2.6, glibc-2.3/2.4, =gcc-3.4, etc... So partially this is a question for gcc porting, how many *known broken* apps don't get fixed when we upgrade and stable a gcc version. Do these stay in the tree, and do they have deps on older versions of gcc (effectively masking them, since old versions of gcc generally get masked by profile eventually). How many apps are just sitting in the tree and no one knows if they compile at all with a recent system? Solar already has some decent tinderboxing scripts, it would be interesting to me to have a system to keep track of the known state of certain categories of packages that are...less used ;) I think also that genone's Gentoo-Stats project would be a great information aggregator as we could identify packages that no one uses anymore. Anyway, these were just some thoughts I had about trimming the tree a bit; feel free to rip em apart as always :0 -Antarus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable Staleness (mostly toolchain)
On 7/30/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another class of packages I wish to discuss (not remove quite yet, just talking ;) ) are older packages with stable markings. By Stable I mean debian stable, IE we stabled it in 2004 and no one has touched it since. Do these packages still work with a current system (linux 2.4/2.6, glibc-2.3/2.4, =gcc-3.4, etc... I have planned such checks/cleanups and more for sci-electronics (stabling, deleting very old versions when there is a newer stable version available, etc...). I'm going on devaway around august 5th, so that will probably be for when I come back late august / early september. I know that sci-electronics is a tiny part of portage, but I'll be doing my share, at least. Denis. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
On Saturday 29 July 2006 15:07, Thierry Carrez wrote: Those were nominated but did not (yet) confirm their participation : jaervosz I'll accept the nomination again this year. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen Gentoo Linux Security Team pgpMVPo0HIJAx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:07:03PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Those were nominated but did not (yet) confirm their participation : plasmaroo I'll decline, maybe next year... :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
Those were nominated but did not (yet) confirm their participation : jakub Wh, someone nominated me? Thanks, I accept. ;) -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] ppc32 meeting summary
Good evening, the ppc32 team had a short monthly meeting tonight. Discussed topics: 1) kernel for 2006.1 We will include the 2.6.17 kernel for the 2006.1 release. There is one issue with the Marvell NIC on the Pegasos left, but including that driver as a module will not hurt anybody by default. The kernel-configs will be sent to the ppc-list for review. 2) 32-bit userland profile on ppc64 We should announce any change to our ppc32 profile to the ppc64-team, so that they can keep their 32-bit userland profile in sync. That includes sending our meeting logs to the ppc64-team. 3) misc Where are our ppc-developers? We went through the devalias and found some inactive devs. Currently we are 10 quite acvite and 15 kinda inactive or supporting devs. Probably we should remove them from the devalias? Next meeting: Sunday, August 27, 19 UTC. Regards, Lars -- Lars Weiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-1963258 Gentoo Linux PowerPC: Strategical Lead and Release Engineer Gentoo Infrastructure : CVS Administrator Gentoo Foundation : Trustee pgpulYqnh2ZTt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:07:03PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Those were nominated but did not (yet) confirm their participation : rl03 Thanks, I accept. -- Renat Lumpau all things web-apps C6A838DA 04AF B5EE 17CB 1000 DDA5 D3FC 1338 ADC2 C6A8 38DA pgpRG5Jh34ZKG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Friday 28 July 2006 01:55, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: So long and thank you for all the fish, Brix I really hate to return home from a long weekend to read these kind of emails. I'm very sad to see you go, you really improved alot on the wireless experience! Good luck with your future projects and I hope we'll share a beer some day:-) -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen Gentoo Linux Security Team pgpLDVwoMZRF0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
Thierry Carrez wrote: We're nearing the end of the nomination period. (Those developers should accept their nomination before July 31, 23:59 UTC, else they won't participate in the election) I'd like to nominate Andrej Kacian (ticho). He's quite a silent dev (speaking about -dev and -core flamefests :) ), so chances are that he won't go bananas. He also wrote nice articles about his hiking activities so I think he'll be a good candidate, now from the CZ-SK conspiracy :) Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thierry Carrez wrote: Those were nominated but did not (yet) confirm their participation : tsunam While honored to be possible considered to be able to help guide the technical direction of gentoo. I however don't feel that I'm capable of it at this time. Too many other things are taking my time within the project. It'd be fun to see how low I'd be on the voting scale but as if I was to somehow miraculously far enough up on the list to be elected, I'd not be able to accept that position. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFEzSfSSENan+PfizARAq/gAJjmAmnAsg+6v1VKdBSK5k25rdPrAJ4mbA22 0+2Fm13PtPWX8rUNc/1OTA== =QGO5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Friday 28 July 2006 06:02, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:35:24AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: Mike asked you repeatedly to voice your issues or concerns in relation to Project Sunrise, which you failed to reply to. How many times are we supposed to raise our concerns about a project whose founders already agreed to run their project as an unofficial project on non-gentoo infrastructure? Did you miss the logs from the devrel + sunrise meeting where genstef and jokey agreed to this? as the thread on gentoo-dev was named: sunrise, a temporary compromise looks to me like most people (rightly) thought of the meeting as resulting in a temporary solution I simply had no idea the Gentoo Council even remotely considered taking Project Sunrise on as an official project. complete garbage if you arent reading the e-mails on the gentoo-dev list which were in reply to your own postings, then that is simply your own fault ... i was cc-ing you to make sure you saw those e-mails, and your reaction was: PS: There is no need to CC: me on replies. Please use reply-to-list. Also, I do not remember you even attending the meeting or asking to speak there, so this really seems a tad unreasonable or impulsive. Same as above - had I known same as above, complete garbage that you guys actually intended to revert your own ruling from the previous meeting along with the consensus reached on the devrel + sunrise meeting I would have been there to raise my concerns. reverting a temporary suspension ? what a crazy idea there were many threads asking for people to look at the latest Sunrise state and comment/complain/whatever with no more negative responses ... if developers arent posting negative feedback and issues appear to be resolved on gentoo-dev, then what else would you expect the Council to do ? -mike pgpRYVA6YVCsw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:51:09 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | then what else would you expect the Council to do ? Personally I'd expect the council to block the thing permanently. The council is, after all, supposed to serve as the last line of defence against people pushing through bad changes. Council members are supposed to be able to judge proposals based upon their merits, not the persistence of those trying to have them pushed through without following the proper process. There's no pawning the blame for this one off on arbitrary developers. Most of them don't have time to keep up with the kind of dirty tricks being used here. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] langs.eclass (deprecating linguas.eclass)
On Monday 24 July 2006 20:28, Peper wrote: Comments are welcome again :] what ebuilds would this actually be useful in ? looking through the code largely gives me the impression of over engineering and not much else -mike pgpdWFj2i5blA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 27 July 2006 18:21, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Looking at the meeting log, the council even noted that the concerns had not been addressed no, we noted that people claimed they had concerns but when cornered and asked what exactly their concerns were, no more responses were to be had people need to bring up their outstanding issues now and get them addressed Ok, since the first time around apparently wasn't good enough, how about this? This project sucks. It takes random ebuilds without enough merit or demand to even have some team and/or developer within Gentoo pick it up, and dumps it to a user-supported-yet-completely-official-break-my-gentoo-style tree that has to potential to cause all sorts of QA problems. It flies right in the face of those of us that have strived to educate users not to rice out their systems with outside-the-tree ebuilds that have not gone through some sort of arch team and/or maintainer QA before hitting the tree. There is nothing you or anyone else can say that will make me think otherwise, and I think it needs to be killed. Now. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Stable Staleness (mostly toolchain)
Alec Warner wrote: Another class of packages I wish to discuss (not remove quite yet, just talking ;) ) are older packages with stable markings. By Stable I mean debian stable, IE we stabled it in 2004 and no one has touched it since. Do these packages still work with a current system (linux 2.4/2.6, glibc-2.3/2.4, =gcc-3.4, etc... So partially this is a question for gcc porting, how many *known broken* apps don't get fixed when we upgrade and stable a gcc version. Depends how much notice we get ahead of time. Things like 'btw we want 4.1 stable for 2006.1' two weeks in advance tend to create more havoc than usual. Do these stay in the tree, and do they have deps on older versions of gcc (effectively masking them, since old versions of gcc generally get masked by profile eventually). Most major archs have at least some version of 3.3 and 3.4 available in stable. Sometimes even 2.95, and some lucky winners have 4.1 in ~arch. amd64 has 3.3 masked for some reason i don't understand, and other arches might too. i'm just going off of what eshowkw tells me. Unless there's a very good reason, older GCC versions shouldn't be punted because it's extremely useful to be able to test your code on a variety of different compilers. How many apps are just sitting in the tree and no one knows if they compile at all with a recent system? Once I'm through with them, hopefully none. ;) I know of a couple packages that won't compile with GCC 3.3, but for most I have a patch or workaround. libmpeg3 is one, can't remember any others off the top of my head. I think also that genone's Gentoo-Stats project would be a great information aggregator as we could identify packages that no one uses anymore. +1 Anyway, these were just some thoughts I had about trimming the tree a bit; feel free to rip em apart as always :0 BTW, I'm interested in joining the Tree Cleaners project once my dev stuff goes through, if it's cool with you. --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed
Stephen P. Becker wrote: Ok, since the first time around apparently wasn't good enough, how about this? This project sucks. It takes random ebuilds without enough merit or demand to even have some team and/or developer within Gentoo pick it up, and dumps it to a user-supported-yet-completely-official-break-my-gentoo-style tree that has to potential to cause all sorts of QA problems. It flies right in the face of those of us that have strived to educate users not to rice out their systems with outside-the-tree ebuilds that have not gone through some sort of arch team and/or maintainer QA before hitting the tree. There is nothing you or anyone else can say that will make me think otherwise, and I think it needs to be killed. Now. I try to stay out of these types of things, but I have to say that I agree completely. -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Stable Staleness (mostly toolchain)
Ryan Hill wrote: Alec Warner wrote: Another class of packages I wish to discuss (not remove quite yet, just talking ;) ) are older packages with stable markings. By Stable I mean debian stable, IE we stabled it in 2004 and no one has touched it since. Do these packages still work with a current system (linux 2.4/2.6, glibc-2.3/2.4, =gcc-3.4, etc... So partially this is a question for gcc porting, how many *known broken* apps don't get fixed when we upgrade and stable a gcc version. Depends how much notice we get ahead of time. Things like 'btw we want 4.1 stable for 2006.1' two weeks in advance tend to create more havoc than usual. Do these stay in the tree, and do they have deps on older versions of gcc (effectively masking them, since old versions of gcc generally get masked by profile eventually). Most major archs have at least some version of 3.3 and 3.4 available in stable. Sometimes even 2.95, and some lucky winners have 4.1 in ~arch. amd64 has 3.3 masked for some reason i don't understand, and other arches might too. i'm just going off of what eshowkw tells me. Unless there's a very good reason, older GCC versions shouldn't be punted because it's extremely useful to be able to test your code on a variety of different compilers. I'm not sure if I'm misreading here, I'm not advocating we dump older gcc versions. Moreso I'm advocating we dump code that doesn't compile with newer gcc/toolchain versions that no one is willing to fix. We have had devs in the past bring in far too many packages and then just leave, so half of them get picked up by other devs, and the other half sit there and rot. Mostly once again, maintainer-needed packages :0 How many apps are just sitting in the tree and no one knows if they compile at all with a recent system? Once I'm through with them, hopefully none. ;) I know of a couple packages that won't compile with GCC 3.3, but for most I have a patch or workaround. libmpeg3 is one, can't remember any others off the top of my head. I think also that genone's Gentoo-Stats project would be a great information aggregator as we could identify packages that no one uses anymore. +1 Anyway, these were just some thoughts I had about trimming the tree a bit; feel free to rip em apart as always :0 BTW, I'm interested in joining the Tree Cleaners project once my dev stuff goes through, if it's cool with you. cool --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
Thierry Carrez wrote: Those were nominated but did not (yet) confirm their participation : agriffis AllanonJL azarah christel CHTEKK george jaervosz jakub johnm kito kosmikus `Kumba marienz Mr_Bones_ nichoj plasmaroo pvdabeel Ramereth rl03 seemant solar tsunam Uberlord I'm going to decline for this year. -- Joshua Nichols Gentoo/Java - Project Lead -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Stable Staleness (mostly toolchain)
Alec Warner wrote: I'm not sure if I'm misreading here, I'm not advocating we dump older gcc versions. Moreso I'm advocating we dump code that doesn't compile with newer gcc/toolchain versions that no one is willing to fix. We have had devs in the past bring in far too many packages and then just leave, so half of them get picked up by other devs, and the other half sit there and rot. Mostly once again, maintainer-needed packages :0 Sorry, for some reason I reversed the entire meaning of your message to refer to packages that build with the current toolchain but not an older one. I blame the hangover and the strangely persuasive goat people. Right now I'm in the middle (well, okay, maybe first quarter) of getting everything in stable working with GCC-4.1.1. If (when) I encounter anything that makes me run away arms flailing in horror I will be happy to CC tree-cleaners (misery loves company) ;). --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed
On 7/30/06, Stephen P. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing you or anyone else can say that will make me think otherwise, You won't listen, yet you expect to be listened to. Speaking as a user and lover of Gentoo I believe you should resign as a developer. On this list and on IRC, I've watched you disparage Sunrise, its supporters, and by implication the general user community's desire to contribute more directly to Gentoo. You've established yourself as quite an extremist. Gentoo is a team effort. There's no place in Gentoo for developers who can't function within a team environment where members must be capable of rational deliberation and, from time to time, compromise. You are harming Gentoo far more gravely than your imagined Sunrise QA problems, because the latter can be managed by the team to within reasonable tolerances if it becomes an issue, but your willful ignorance and uncompromising attitude cannot. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sunday 30 July 2006 18:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Personally I'd expect the council to block the thing permanently. hard to address any sort of concerns here, so i guess i'll just regurgitate the council log to you it's hard for users to get involved in our development process ... i imagine some consider that a feature, but it leaves a large portion of our community out in the cold sunrise is attempting to fill that gap via some controversial methods ... in review, we deemed that the many concerns raised were pretty much addressed and any more requests for criticism and useful critiques either went unanswered or people piped up saying that they were happy with the latest state i (nor anyone else) cannot say whether this venture will succeed, only time will prove out the project ... sitting around and clamoring for more openness while killing every attempt at it gets us nowhere we take a risk with this project (like every single other project) ... if sunrise turns out to suck and cause problems, then we kill it, no big deal -mike pgpLtIN7EbqwQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed
On Sunday 30 July 2006 18:47, Stephen P. Becker wrote: There is nothing you or anyone else can say well if you're coming forth with such stout resolution of ignoring any one else's input, then there's no point in debating the topic with you now is there ? -mike pgpRLmOrTjAue.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On 7/30/06, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 30 July 2006 18:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Personally I'd expect the council to block the thing permanently. hard to address any sort of concerns here, so i guess i'll just regurgitate the council log to you it's hard for users to get involved in our development process ... i imagine some consider that a feature, but it leaves a large portion of our community out in the cold I do not see why it is considdered hard for users to get involved. Users have at least two choices that I can think of right now, and probably a number that I cannot think of. 1) Users can submit patches/ideas to bugs.g.o at whatever frequency they desire, contributing to gentoo casually. 2) Users can take the quizzes and become a developer, I do not see why two quizzes is considdered an insurmountable task, the quizzes are specifically designed to ensure that people writing ebuilds understand what ebuilds can contain and what they cannot, I could not imagine a user wanting to install a package from an ebuild written by someone that does not know this. sunrise is attempting to fill that gap via some controversial methods ... in review, we deemed that the many concerns raised were pretty much addressed and any more requests for criticism and useful critiques either went unanswered or people piped up saying that they were happy with the latest state i (nor anyone else) cannot say whether this venture will succeed, only time will prove out the project ... sitting around and clamoring for more openness while killing every attempt at it gets us nowhere we take a risk with this project (like every single other project) ... if sunrise turns out to suck and cause problems, then we kill it, no big deal -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:19:56 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | we take a risk with this project (like every single other | project) ... if sunrise turns out to suck and cause problems, then we | kill it, no big deal How many more users and developers will have to be lost before it's considered to suck and cause problems? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 03:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:19:56 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | we take a risk with this project (like every single other | project) ... if sunrise turns out to suck and cause problems, then we | kill it, no big deal How many more users and developers will have to be lost before it's considered to suck and cause problems? I don't recall users having been lost to the Sunrise. I know of only one developer who left. He left in a huff, in an emotional I'm taking toys, because I don't like them way, without actually raising any issues that he was against, other than a nebulous concern about QA. Show me at least that concern being concrete and we have a starting place. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sunday 30 July 2006 22:28, Dan Meltzer wrote: 1) Users can submit patches/ideas to bugs.g.o at whatever frequency they desire, contributing to gentoo casually. load up your browser and check out how many bugs are assigned to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' opening a bug, putting together an ebuild/patches/etc..., and then watching it sit there and bitrot for weeks, months, and in the extreme case years certainly is anything but encouraging especially considering that by the time a developer gets an interest in the posted ebuild, the ebuild/patches/etc... are now bitrotted and need just as much work to get them up and working with the latest release 2) Users can take the quizzes and become a developer our developer system does not cater to the one package per developer organizational style ... as such, would be maintainers need to learn a lot more about Gentoo than they may ever actually need plus the timeframe from saying hey i'd like to develop to actually getting your own commit access is heftier than many would like to undertake ... of course this system is by design to try and weed out flakes and make sure that people granted access to the whole tree can be pretty well trusted -mike pgpDecZZbjoMf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sunday 30 July 2006 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:19:56 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | we take a risk with this project (like every single other | project) ... if sunrise turns out to suck and cause problems, then we | kill it, no big deal How many more users and developers will have to be lost before it's considered to suck and cause problems? trying to make everyone happy with every topic that comes up is just never going to happen -mike pgpiV3Yk4CfRM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:50:31 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Show me at least that concern being concrete and we have a | starting place. -!- [Users #gentoo-sunrise] -!- @genstef devon bonsaikitten_ Zamorate eimono|home dev-zero brebs staskorz @nichoj_work eimono SunriseCIA richiefrich +Peper @CHTEKK SunriseBot TiCPU shillelagh Juippis -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 04:06 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:50:31 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Show me at least that concern being concrete and we have a | starting place. -!- [Users #gentoo-sunrise] -!- @genstef devon bonsaikitten_ Zamorate eimono|home dev-zero brebs staskorz @nichoj_work eimono SunriseCIA richiefrich +Peper @CHTEKK SunriseBot TiCPU shillelagh Juippis A user list of a channel doesn't actually say anything. Please elaborate. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
I am only a user and have been keeping out of this debate but I feel I need to at least express my thoughts. I have been folllowing the Sunrise thread(s) since it started. I have done a couple of ebuilds a long time ago and would love to have been able to contribute to Gentoo but due to time constraints - not enough of it G - I just can't. I have been a longtime Gentoo user and have loved it because A) it had no rpms (I had to write them for Caldera), B). It allowed me to configure a system for me quickly that ran well without bloat C) It was easy to keep updated - no hassling with Yast, yum, apt-get, etc. and D). it was dependable - you could download the x86 and know it would work with very few issues. However, I am going to be building a new system from scratch and this sunrise mess is causing me to revevaluate my choice of distro. My concerns - first for my systems - are that it is allowing essentially anybody to submit almost anything with no QA. It's a BMG that's offical! My concern - for users - is that since it's officially supported they will expect things to work and when they don't - as they will not - Gentoo's reputation will suffer. Gentoo provides a means for people to participate on several levels. They can do as I did and do a few ebuild and submit them to bugzilla - if there's enough demand then they'll eventually get in portage. They can also take a quiz and do ebuilds on a more official level. Or they can work to be a developer. All of these paths ensure that we have proper QA and control. The sunrise people seem bent out of shape that ebuilds sit in bugzilla and don't get in the tree. One comment was that it's discouraging. Well, tough - the user who submitted it can get over it and realize that the application that is so precious to him is not that wonderful to anyone else. I did with mine - I understood that I did them to accomplish something I needed and I put them in bugzilla just in case anyone else had a need but I had no expectation of them going into portage. In fact one of my ebuilds was based on another ebuild someone put in portage for the same reason - the author had a need, wrote an ebuild and then shared it. If a user really wants his ebuild in portage he'll take the quiz and become a more official part of Gentoo - but he will have been tested and checked out. I administer systems (mainly Windows but also AIX and LInux - and Linux is my main home system!) at my job in IT Operations. Some of my systems can shutdown the business if I mess up. That's why I do things like run upgrades on test systems or use VMware to test out before I turn the changes loose. At home I also need my system to run and work. I won't be downloading Sunrise stuff but I UNDERSTAND the consequences - most users will not understand as they figure It's gentoo so it works. Look at the confusion with ~arch vs arch. People go with ~arch and then get upset when it breaks. I know I'm only one user but I'm really disappointed that the Council turned sunrise official. It gives me serious concern a bout Gentoo's reliablity and their reputation. On Sunday July 30 2006 23:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:50:31 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Show me at least that concern being concrete and we have a | starting place. -!- [Users #gentoo-sunrise] -!- @genstef devon bonsaikitten_ Zamorate eimono|home dev-zero brebs staskorz @nichoj_work eimono SunriseCIA richiefrich +Peper @CHTEKK SunriseBot TiCPU shillelagh Juippis -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- Brett I. Holcomb -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
OK wait, on your servers, are you actually planning to *use* any of the ebuilds in Sunrise's overlay? If not, how is it a concern? I personally don't use any of them, and my system is running perfectly fine. Let's not forget that nobody is shoving Sunrise down anyone's throat... -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sunday 30 July 2006 23:32, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: - first for my systems - are that it is allowing essentially anybody to submit almost anything with no QA. no, read the FAQ http://www.gentoo-sunrise.org/sunrise/wiki/SunriseFaq#Howareyouensuringthatthereisnob0rken/maliciuscodegettingintotheoverlay - for users - is that since it's officially supported they will expect things to work and when they don't - as they will not - Gentoo's reputation will suffer. i wont try and guess at what users will expect ... you can document everything and still there will be people who wont read them -mike pgpdkVXKoMlxU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
My concern is beyond me. As I stated I know enough about what to expect IF I use sunrise. But many do not and with it becoming official people figure it's gentoo and when it breaks Gentoo suffers. Gentoo has a reputation as a good solid, stable distro. As user and big fan of Gentoo I'm concerned - why couldn't sunrise have stayed unoffical like BMG. Why does it have to be official? Gentoo can choose to do what it feels is right and I will do the same. I answered only because someone asked for user's concerns well this is mine and you all can do with the input as you please without any hard feelings on my part. On Sunday July 30 2006 23:42, Seemant Kulleen wrote: OK wait, on your servers, are you actually planning to *use* any of the ebuilds in Sunrise's overlay? If not, how is it a concern? I personally don't use any of them, and my system is running perfectly fine. Let's not forget that nobody is shoving Sunrise down anyone's throat... -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- Brett I. Holcomb -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
Thierry Carrez wrote: Those were nominated but did not (yet) confirm their participation : `Kumba Arrr me mateys! err, that's not until Sept. 19thmy bad. Reading over the current nominees, the field looks pretty varied. It'll be a fun race. So I suppose I'll throw my hat into the mix to make the race even more fun! My campaign pledges: - Pikachu Petting zoo (great for kids) - Cement mixer in the lavatory (don't ask) - Orange sherbert dispenser in the lounge (after we expand it to accommodate all the other proposed vending machines) But the best is for last: A MIPS Roller coaster! - 4 different styles of roller coaster with 3 separate tracks each - One track will be simple, yet quite mundane, another semi-functional, but a bit unstable, and the third wholly untested. - They'll range in size from some of the biggest coasters you've ever seen to some being embedded in the lounge (after expansion, of course) - All the parts will be requisitioned from eBay, so the price should be quite cheap. --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. --Elrond -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On 7/30/06, Brett I. Holcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My concerns - first for my systems - are that it is allowing essentially anybody to submit almost anything with no QA. This no QA accusation is a complete myth. QA led by actual Gentoo developers is indeed in place at Sunrise [1]. Every single user-authored submission made available in the public overlay was placed there by existing Gentoo developers who've reviewed and approved them. When you check out Sunrise using layman for instance, you are getting what's known as the reviewed tree, not the tree that users commit directly to. If these facts still don't assuage your concerns then don't use the Sunrise overlay -- it's that simple. I suspect this myth perpetuates because its supporters haven't actually bothered to review the Sunrise procedures [2] already in place and in use. Another source of enlightenment which many, if not all, of the detractors don't seem to have indulged in is dropping by #gentoo-sunrise and watching the Sunrise process as it happens in practice. Please do your homework people, otherwise you're just spreading FUD. [1] http://www.gentoo-sunrise.org/sunrise/wiki/SunriseFaq [2] http://www.gentoo-sunrise.org/sunrise/wiki/HowToCommit -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 23:50 -0400, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: My concern is beyond me. As I stated I know enough about what to expect IF I use sunrise. But many do not and with it becoming official people figure it's gentoo and when it breaks Gentoo suffers. Gentoo has a reputation as a good solid, stable distro. As user and big fan of Gentoo I'm concerned - why couldn't sunrise have stayed unoffical like BMG. Why does it have to be official? Gentoo can choose to do what it feels is right and I will do the same. BMG has, from day 1, been marginalised in the Gentoo community. I always fancied that they should've been folded into the larger Gentoo projects and become what Sunrise is today. The way I read you, your fear is based on the possibility of some future perception by an unknown number of people. Sunrise's idea is that stuff gets checked and re-checked and remains accessible -- have you read through their site and their commit histories and changesets? They're not exactly dawdling. As for Gentoo's reputation, I'm actually pleasantly surprised to hear it characterised that way :) If it has that reputation, then it will actually take a lot to break that. I'm surprised that ~keywords didn't already break it. I agree that the official portage tree is a QA nightmare. Sunrise seems to be nipping that nightmare for a future date -- ie by allowing people to commit and perform peer reviews, they're grooming the next generation of developers to look at QA from the outset, instead of as an afterthought. I answered only because someone asked for user's concerns well this is mine and you all can do with the input as you please without any hard feelings on my part. It's an exchange of ideas, there shouldn't be hard feelings on anyone's part. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:20:16 -0500 Alex Tarkovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This no QA accusation is a complete myth. QA led by actual Gentoo | developers is indeed in place at Sunrise [1]. Did you look at *which* actual Gentoo developers are on the list? Even that aside, if a couple of hundred developers can't handle doing QA for all those maintainer-wanted ebuilds, what makes you think four people can? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 05:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Did you look at *which* actual Gentoo developers are on the list? Is this sort of degeneration really necessary? Even that aside, if a couple of hundred developers can't handle doing QA for all those maintainer-wanted ebuilds, what makes you think four people can? I think, again, people are not looking at Sunrise as a training ground. It's better to start teaching people QA, and doing so in an active rather than a passive medium. Again, I haven't yet seen a reason to kill Sunrise. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:36:36 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 05:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Did you look at *which* actual Gentoo developers are on the list? | | Is this sort of degeneration really necessary? Considering how one of the major concerns about Sunrise is the QA aspect, I'd say that the ability of those in charge of its QA is extremely relevant... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:42:52 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | What, honestly, are people worried about with Sunrise? Partly, the part where it's run by people who have little clue about ebuild development or QA, who will be taking code from people who have little clue about ebuild development or QA and giving it to other people who have little clue about ebuild development or QA. Partly, the way it's bypassing the normal herd system and allowing unqualified developers to push code related to things they don't understand. Partly, the way it's being pushed through without proper discussion and without following the proper processes that're used to reduce the risk of major screwup. Sunrise is the wrong solution to a misrepresented problem being run by the wrong people. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:20:16 -0500 Alex Tarkovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This no QA accusation is a complete myth. QA led by actual Gentoo | developers is indeed in place at Sunrise [1]. Did you look at *which* actual Gentoo developers are on the list? Even that aside, if a couple of hundred developers can't handle doing QA for all those maintainer-wanted ebuilds, what makes you think four people can? Really now Ciaran, if you have issues with those people. Take it up with them. You've yet to state a reason why it concerns you. Its no better then the people who are saying that it'll be a huge QA issue but they are not elaborating on it. As some are aware and some are not, the basic job I do for gentoo is a QA one. I help to ensure the x86 arch tree is hopefully as stable as possible. So if anything this will affect me directly. I however want to see what the project can do. If it does end up as a problem then it can be killed off, but doing so before it has a chance to fly is part of what has been keeping us from innovating as a distribution. It means we're maturing, but we are still a community project and as such should be allowed to fly with possibly wild idea's when it suits us. As well, we are all human, as you are Ciaran. This means that we make mistakes. However, what you are also asking is to NOT trust those people who are qualified to be part of gentoo to be able to do the work and perform it in a decent way. I will not begin to doubt any of the people who have the gentoo flag as part of who they are because of being human. As has been said as well, we learn more from the mistakes we make then somehow having avoided it without realizing why. Thirdly, I know one of the issues with one of the leaders of the project, is the fact that they are not a ebuild developer. I'd like to have them take the second quiz simply to prove that they have the knowledge to be trusted to review the ebuilds. Course with the number that he's seen I'm sure he's helped take care of things that would make the rest of us go...how did they think that was ever a good idea. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEzY0sSENan+PfizARAu2kAJ488MHWDCtFY8SKetoC1wxFtpPk7wCfW97W DxJvWeVcd87OukymD/M+Crs= =kdC9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed again (was Resignation)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 03:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Partly, the part where it's run by people who have little clue about ebuild development or QA, who will be taking code from people who have little clue about ebuild development or QA and giving it to other people who have little clue about ebuild development or QA. Can you back up the first part? The people running it, you claim, have little clue about ebuild dev and QA -- can you provide proof of this? It does, actually, fall on you, since you're making the accusation. Partly, the way it's bypassing the normal herd system and allowing unqualified developers to push code related to things they don't understand. Where is this code being pushed to, exactly? Partly, the way it's being pushed through without proper discussion and without following the proper processes that're used to reduce the risk of major screwup. This list has been full of discussion. And before the council meeting, there were many further calls for discussion and comment. The sunrise folks have been actually pretty patient about addressing the same concerns over and over and over. Sunrise is the wrong solution to a misrepresented problem being run by the wrong people. OK, let's start with: what exactly is the problem? What is the correct way to represent it? After that please explain how you came to see sunrise as the wrong solution to that problem. You've claimed several times that you just try to stick to technical, so please put a stop to the look, but it's *them* doing it, how can you trust those people? bullshit already. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On 7/30/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:20:16 -0500 Alex Tarkovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This no QA accusation is a complete myth. QA led by actual Gentoo | developers is indeed in place at Sunrise [1]. Did you look at *which* actual Gentoo developers are on the list? I'm not certain what you're insinuating here, but yes, I'm a Sunrise contributor so I work with these Gentoo devs and watch them interact with everyone daily. They're quite competent, hard-working, friendly and helpful. Thanks largely in part to their efforts, 4 regular Sunrise contributors have already decided to increase their involvement by becoming trusted committers, and they may very soon become full-fledged Gentoo developers (the traditional way of course). Even that aside, if a couple of hundred developers can't handle doing QA for all those maintainer-wanted ebuilds, what makes you think four people can? Sunrise only became functional about a month ago. Give it time. It's true there are only 4 Gentoo devs *currently* presiding, but they only oversee the ~150 ebuilds that are currently in Sunrise. As Sunrise succeeds (and all indications are it's working quite well so far), more Gentoo devs will no doubt choose to participate. Also note that it isn't Sunrise's goal to move every single maintainer-wanted/maintainer-needed ebuild into the overlay, so it's not fair to judge the project's capabilities against such a lofty standard. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:20:16 -0500 Alex Tarkovsky | This no QA accusation is a complete myth. QA led by actual Gentoo | developers is indeed in place at Sunrise [1]. Did you look at *which* actual Gentoo developers are on the list? You know, that was a completely unnecessary personal attack. God forbid anyone take the time to attempt something they think may be beneficial to the community. If you in all your elitist wisdom think you can do better then try helping out. If not, then please fuck off. Even that aside, if a couple of hundred developers can't handle doing QA for all those maintainer-wanted ebuilds, what makes you think four people can? If a couple of hundred developers actually paid any attention whatsoever to maintainer-wanted ebuilds then there wouldn't have to be any such project in the first place. --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:50:40 -0400 Brett I. Holcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Continue with *top-posting* as it is. Does Gentoo gives more choises to users or not? With the freedom/choise comes the responsibility (if anything breaks). Gentoo is known not to be for *everybody* (unless he/she is willing to learn quite stubborn to use it). These ebuilds *are* already in Bugzilla, and for some there're people interested in maintaining/improving them. IMHO this is better then an ebuild/s which seats for 2-3 years and is of *outstanding quality*. The world is in motion not static. The overall concern (for me) with 'sunrise' similar is the availability (in advance) of some *good/understandable* information about some consequences in using such project/s. Just a warning no more. All this on main docs page (to be visible). E.g. some of the current *semi/official* overlays mess with the versions in the *main tree* so i have to mask/unmask things to do what i want (i accept this). Just my point of view, no more. Rumen My concern is beyond me. As I stated I know enough about what to expect IF I use sunrise. But many do not and with it becoming official people figure it's gentoo and when it breaks Gentoo suffers. Gentoo has a reputation as a good solid, stable distro. As user and big fan of Gentoo I'm concerned - why couldn't sunrise have stayed unoffical like BMG. Why does it have to be official? Gentoo can choose to do what it feels is right and I will do the same. I answered only because someone asked for user's concerns well this is mine and you all can do with the input as you please without any hard feelings on my part. On Sunday July 30 2006 23:42, Seemant Kulleen wrote: OK wait, on your servers, are you actually planning to *use* any of the ebuilds in Sunrise's overlay? If not, how is it a concern? I personally don't use any of them, and my system is running perfectly fine. Let's not forget that nobody is shoving Sunrise down anyone's throat... -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:22:33 -0600 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:20:16 -0500 Alex Tarkovsky | | This no QA accusation is a complete myth. QA led by actual | | Gentoo developers is indeed in place at Sunrise [1]. | | Did you look at *which* actual Gentoo developers are on the list? | | You know, that was a completely unnecessary personal attack. God | forbid anyone take the time to attempt something they think may be | beneficial to the community. If you in all your elitist wisdom think | you can do better then try helping out. If not, then please fuck off. Good intentions and trying to be helpful don't keep users or developers. Screwups lose users and developers. Would you stick a bunch of war evacuees on a plane piloted by Britney Spears if she said she was doing it because she wanted to be helpful? | Even that aside, if a couple of hundred developers can't handle | doing QA for all those maintainer-wanted ebuilds, what makes you | think four people can? | | If a couple of hundred developers actually paid any attention | whatsoever to maintainer-wanted ebuilds then there wouldn't have to | be any such project in the first place. A couple of hundred developers can barely handle the main tree... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed again (was Resignation)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 06:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Their commit history backs it up all by itself. Ppint to specifically what, in their respective histories, proves your case. This is like pulling teeth. | Where is this code being pushed to, exactly? Users. Please note the difference between pulling and pushing. Pushing implies that people who don't want sunrise on their systems have to have it and have to use it. This is not the case. So, again, where is this code being *pushed* to, exactly? The correct way to push through a large change is part of the developer quiz. There's no excuse for anyone not knowing it. Was it really a *large change* that they pushed through? They haven't altered the way anybody does things. Any developer or user going about their normal business does not even have to *think* about sunrise. Not that large a change, after all. Would you fly in a plane being piloted by Britney Spears? What do I care what the pilot's name is? And how is that relevant to the discussion, when you've yet to actually show why any of the Sunrise staff is unfit. Furthermore, there were other questions I asked that you completely removed from your reply. Please answer those as well. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed again (was Resignation)
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:38:42 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 06:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Their commit history backs it up all by itself. | | Ppint to specifically what, in their respective histories, proves your | case. This is like pulling teeth. No, the question is what in their respective histories refutes it. And the answer here is nothing. QA ability isn't something that's assumed, it's something that has to be demonstrated. | | Where is this code being pushed to, exactly? | | Users. | | Please note the difference between pulling and pushing. Pushing | implies that people who don't want sunrise on their systems have to | have it and have to use it. This is not the case. So, again, where | is this code being *pushed* to, exactly? http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060619-newsletter.xml | The correct way to push through a large change is part of the | developer quiz. There's no excuse for anyone not knowing it. | | Was it really a *large change* that they pushed through? They haven't | altered the way anybody does things. Any developer or user going | about their normal business does not even have to *think* about | sunrise. Not that large a change, after all. Any developer going about their normal business now has to worry about an officially approved BMGalike, and whether it's causing the bugs they're receiving. Any developer going about their normal business now has to worry about people who know little about the packages they maintain pushing out content that would ordinarily be covered by their herd to users via a back route. | Would you fly in a plane being piloted by Britney Spears? | | What do I care what the pilot's name is? You care whether or not the pilot knows how to fly a plane. | And how is that relevant to | the discussion, when you've yet to actually show why any of the | Sunrise staff is unfit. To continue with the plane analogy, you don't assume that everyone can fly a plane until they disprove it by crashing one. | Furthermore, there were other questions I asked that you completely | removed from your reply. Please answer those as well. They're not relevant to this discussion. We're not discussing what the right solution is, we're discussing why Sunrise is the wrong solution. There's a hell of a difference -- as an illustration, most people could tell you why giving everybody nukes is the wrong way to get peace in the middle east, but very few could tell you what the right way is... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
