Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:48:30PM +0400, Igor wrote: Do we have an agreement on this one from everyone of the list? Agreement on what, precisely...? In open source, better implementations usually gain more mindshare. If you think you can write one (and the project is interesting to you) go forth and produce code! ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Relicensing sys-freebsd/* under the BSD-2 license
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:52:18PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: The improvement is to the ebuild itself. It is a variable containing a list of directories upon which the module's build system depends. I spoke to naota and he doesn't have any problem sending this upstream, so I sent an email to the FreeBSD maintainer offering him the improvement. I would argue that a trivial change like that is unlikely to be substantial enough to constitute a copyrightable work at all.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 09:03:41PM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote: On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done. it certainly doesnt warrant a paniced the sky is falling message. I think this is a great occasion to dump our stupid custom crap and switch to SystemD, PolicyKit, NetworkManager, etc. Anyone with half a brain already dropped our stuff. And the lack of use of modern tools is the reason I don't use Gentoo on my work computer anymore. I wasn't looking to run Ubuntu, but thanks anyway 8)
Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] recruitment process
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:50:49AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote: Just replying randomly. On 05.04.2010 04:33, Tobias Heinlein wrote: I think this is a good starting point to get rid of the some important questions are too hard to answer dilemma that can be implemented relatively fast. On top of that I like Sebastian's idea to order the quizzes by difficulty -- this means just ordering by the categories I just mentioned would be sufficient: 1 first, then 2, then 3. I am not against this idea but frankly, I do not understand what is so demotivating about the ebuild quiz. If you get demotivated because of a single exam, perhaps the problem is with the motivation and not with the exam itself. I took the published quiz just for the fun of it and to see where I missed. It is not that long. Agreed... I've been following this discussion with mixed feelings. When we originally began using the quiz system the idea was simply to try to force new developers to RTFM -- and I was not such a fan of the entire concept (as I recall, the quizzes were a suggestion from Daniel). As it turns out, the quiz system has repeatedly proven itself useful in another way: developers who whine/bitch/moan and are hesitant to even attempt to complete the quizzes often turn out to be bitchy, unmotivated, or unpleasant developers. I don't want to name any names, but I've seen this often. IMO, those boring too much like high school quizzes serve one extremely valuable function: finding out up front who's a team player (or at least willing to do something mildly unpleasant for the Greater Good) If that's causing potential devs to drop out... perhaps the system is working as it should? :)
Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] recruitment process
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 05:50:49PM +0100, George Prowse wrote: That assumes the system is working perfectly and the whole fact that we are having this discussion would go against that. From what i've read in the community, lots of people would have no problems helping out maintaining packages, they just don't want the baggage that comes with it. You could say they're lazy or they're not the type of developers you want but at the end of the day they're just different developers, most of whom probably just want to make sure the packages they like are in the tree and updated. Which is all well and good -- the you wrote some ebuilds so here's your commit privs and @gentoo.org approach to recruitment worked great when Gentoo had a few dozen developers. Today QA is a bit more important, and development is often rather more complex than new version, bump the ebuild -- it's important that new developers have a firm understanding of ebuild complexities. I have no dog in this fight, I don't even like resurfacing to post to -dev. Just here to offer some insight on why we originally kept the quiz system.
[gentoo-dev] Retirement
I've been mostly inactive for a good while but hanging on mostly for sentimentality's sake, it's past time for that to stop. I mostly only maintain a small handful of ebuilds, I'm sure they can find proper homes quickly. None are maintenance-intensive. And of course, the only thing anyone is really concerned about; robbat2 has already laid claim to fortune-mod-gentoo-dev ;) Later. It's been fun, it's been real, but it hasn't been real fun. :) I'll be around #gentoo/#-dev. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: Not going to happen. I'm many things, but a software developer is not one of them. I generally prefer to work on things like design and user psychology than actually being involved in the coding of it. You don't want me producing code for the project, trust me on that one. Perhaps get involved in userrel then? Plenty of ways to get involved without necessarily producing code directly -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:49:40AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Because it's *REALLY* stupid and shows just how unprofessional we are when we have multiple groups doing the *EXACT* same thing using different policies and procedures and all pushing it as if it were *OFFICIAL* for the distribution. I mean, we're really getting to the point where this is getting *COMPLETELY* ludicrous. Instead of trying to work together, we have every yahoo with an @gentoo.org address who wants to do something *slightly* differently coming up with a new project for it. Once upon a time, all us yahoos with @gentoo.org addresses could start doing something new and interesting without getting chewed on. I don't see you wanting to work together with anyone, I see you attacking this with no apparent justification provided except we could have done this too Why can't we simply try to work *together* on things instead of this whole I'll start a new project mentality that we have? It seems that this *exact* sort of action is what causes frustrations between developers and serves to strengthen the territorial pissing contests that are going on daily all over Gentoo. The reason why it seems Gentoo is fracturing is because of multiple people doing the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Our users don't know what the hell is going on anymore. Well, they're not alone... neither do I. Chris, I have all the respect in the world for releng and the work you do there. I know firsthand that releng is a very difficult task. However, I am having great difficulty comprehending why you even bothered sending this mail. Are you trying to say releng was already doing this and nobody knew about it, or that releng should've been asked to approve this, or what? You're the only one getting territorial about it, I'm curious as to what the real issue is. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 12:17:27PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: Am Donnerstag, 7. September 2006 11:11 schrieb Stuart Herbert: On 9/7/06, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How wonderful this sort of maintenance is you can read here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 Am I the only one who has a problem with this? No. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a problem with your comment in that bug either. Bugzilla isn't there for flaming other devs. There was a time when we used to suspend devs for doing that. Sadly we don't suspend developers for extended history of QA violations. Not true, unfortunately these problems seem to very rarely get communicated to devrel... -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrice: arch team perspective
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:08:55PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Starting a new thread here for a new angle... As Stuart mentioned, bugs for any ebuild on o.g.o would go through Gentoo bugzilla. It seems like genstef and jokey have completely ignored support from arch teams for this overlay. What are you proposing with respect to arch keywords and package.mask? Do you actually expect us to do anything but close assigned bugs for sunrice ebuilds as WONTFIX? Where else would these bugs go except for arch teams, seeing as we clearly can't assign them to end users who originally submitted the maintainer-wanted ebuilds? And while we're talking collateral damage, could the Sunrise folks please make sure it's abundantly clear that users shouldn't ask for support in #gentoo after installing any Sunrise ebuilds? Thanks, Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team and without our permission. No one needs permission to put ebuilds from bugs.gentoo.org into an overylay. The ebuilds, assuming they have the proper header, are all Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2. ~tcort I do not object to the concept of ebuilds in overlays. I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and supporting a semiofficial overlay. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: First of all, I'm in limbo on this. Certainly not dead set against it. If this were to be used, I'd like to add the following line: At least 1 of these three must be actively involved in the development of the package manager. Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing remain under the full control of Gentoo Linux. Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an outside entity steer our primary package manager. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:29:22AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an outside entity steer our primary package manager. I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and many others have survived quite well. And really never do anything innovative with their package managers; in fact apt and rpm haven't done anything new and interesting since the 90s. More to the point, though, it's not clear to me what awful things happen if Gentoo does not own the package manager code, as long as that code is under a reasonable license. Suppose that such a package manager did became a Gentoo default, and at some point the program diverged from what Gentoo really wanted; wouldn't Gentoo then just fork the package manager? Am I missing something obvious? Well, let's take the real life example of paludis vs. portage: Paludis is controlled by a former developer known for being hard to work with, Portage (being a Gentoo project) by necessitity has to be controlled by someone other developers can work with (else the council can intervene and fix the problem with new management). If the primary package manager is controlled by Gentoo, we exercise somewhat more control over the direction it takes in the first place and can avoid ever needing to fork or deal with any potentially poor upstream relations. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Heritage
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:49:27PM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: i guess your only criticism is that it's stupid ... that's pretty easy to quantify -mike Stupid is my subjective opinion but if you want really good reasons for me to drop Larry then heres the only one I need: Larry our wonderful mascot is from a font collection that we DO NOT OWN THE COPYRIGHT TOO. Our esteemed ex-architect STOLE Larry. Legally speaking we have no rights to use Larry whatsoever and if the owner of the copyright ever stumbles onto gentoo.org and sees it we are looking at a big fat lawsuit. How's that for quantification? Last I heard, the fontset was under a non-restrictive license. This discussion has taken place before. ps. vapier, making smart ass remarks on MY bugs and closing them without even consulting me first is NOT cool. I already put up with your homophobic bullshit on irc and these lists, I *won't* put up with you touching my bugs when you have *NOTHING* to do with them. Stick to the portage tree and keep your fingers off of my bugs. Understood? Is this kind of approach really necessary here? This doesn't seem like an emotional issue from where I'm sitting... -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:41:31AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: inviting community) and why you think stricter test make for better developers, why you think harder tests would cut down more on the quick in and out people. Empirical evidence agrees. Our current quiz practices have done a good job keeping out a lot of the incompetence that used to slip through before we took that approach. Stricter tests make for more knowledgable developers and folks with a lack of commitment to Gentoo are usually not willing to tackle the learning curve. As for whether or not we're inviting or not, anybody can contribute. They don't need to be @gentoo.org to do so. What we really need is to focus more on those outside contributions. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:38:17AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Portnoy wrote: On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:41:31AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: inviting community) and why you think stricter test make for better developers, why you think harder tests would cut down more on the quick in and out people. Empirical evidence agrees. Our current quiz practices have done a good job keeping out a lot of the incompetence that used to slip through before we took that approach. Stricter tests make for more knowledgable developers and folks with a lack of commitment to Gentoo are usually not willing to tackle the learning curve. As for whether or not we're inviting or not, anybody can contribute. They don't need to be @gentoo.org to do so. What we really need is to focus more on those outside contributions. so that is where this is all coming from, who said that we should hand out @gentoo.org ? i never said that, they don't need it, and everyone gets to feel all special about the @gentoo.org the way they are used to, a committing contributor does not require a @gentoo.org That's called a figure of speech -- I was not literally referring to the email address but rather Gentoo developer status. Sorry for being unclear. My point was more that commit access is not a prerequisite to contribute. and unless you give them a general aptitude and attitude test, you do not know a thing about the person who answered a few technical questions (more) Sure you do. You know whether they know what they're doing in the tree. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:14:53AM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote: I find that developer growth as being a problem. Adding a developer to gentoo should be as easy as 1. has the user contributed numerous (~5+) patches that helps the project move forward. If yes, then commit access should be given. Adding a developer is usually quite a chore. There are numerous reasons why this is a problem: having a live tree, taking a test, and not defining within policy when a person could possibly get commit access. All these reasons leave the project stagnant and lacking developers. Maybe certain projects are (and maybe there are a lot of undermaintained packages) but overall I would say we are not really lacking developers; what areas would you say we're lacking devs in exactly? The recruitment process should be tightened further to ensure we have a solid, educated dev base. This isn't about shutting people out, it's about ensuring that anyone with commit access is well-versed in how we do things. Why do people have to take a test? Is it to make sure they won't break the tree? If it is, then the solution of a test is wrong. We do want to make sure our developers understand gentoo, but I argue that the bugtracker is all we need. As long as a person is adding value to gentoo and they have proven themselves, then they *should* have commit access. Many people with useful contributions can commit garbage due to not quite knowing what they're doing. The quiz process is an attempt to address that. We used to recruit the way you suggest and it worked for years; we've since outgrown that. Testing recruits provides further education. Admittedly the quiz as it stands is archaic and needs reworking. I believe the recruiters team is working on addressing that. Everyone here is on the same team. There will be some breakages in the tree and those can be dealt with. Like Seemant [1] said, herds are just groups of like *packages*. The QA Policy is wrong when it says cross-team assistance; we are all on the *same* team. The tree should naturally work. If it doesn't then that is a bug for all of us. OK, well, realistically we are composed of projects working on various areas of Gentoo that must work together with one another to form a whole. Gentoo is not and should not be one big amorphous blob. Conflict resolution should not be a subproject. It should *not* exist at all. Rules need to be in place to avoid conflict. Having some sort of voting structure for all the developers (this doesn't mean requiring everyone to vote) and not just the council or devrel makes a lot of sense for most things. If I don't like how someone is acting within the project there should be a vote and then see if that person is kicked out. No trial, no anything besides a vote. And if I lose I have to deal with it. Either stay with the project, or find something else. This solution just works. Why should conflict resolution be a popularity contest? Gentoo should be a fun environment. The previous paragraph should be taken as a last resort. __Problem: GLEPs__ I dislike GLEPs. Usually they sit on the website for a long long time not doing anything. My vote (+1) is get rid of gleps and do everything by email and a vote by the developers. AFAIK, the board votes on the GLEPs. Bad Idea. It stifles things from getting done, and there is no ownership of who is going to implement the idea. A new idea proposal should be mailed to a mailinglist (-innovation?) with details of timeline to completion, impact, and who is doing the implementation. If it sounds like a good one, then there is a vote and things proceed. I like progress. Well, I think we all like progress. The council votes on GLEPs; I don't see how extending voting to include _all of Gentoo_ would speed things up or contribute to progress... this is why we elect representatives. Overall I think this would be a regression. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: I feel really confused. Have you read the logs of the recent affair? Devrel *hadn't* requested anything, infra made an action on their own and *didn't* revert it even after being told by devrel that no action was requested. And then there was much discussion and it was largely resolved between the two projects, so I don't see how it's relevant to what I said. Sure infra has to pick up the pieces, that's their job. If they don't like it and think that $someone is about to screw up something while devrel doesn't think so and devrel don't change their mind after a talk with infra, even then infra should have *no power* to suspend the dev in question. At least that's how I see the infra's role as I already stated several times on -core. Politics != system administration. I said when devrel breaks, not when infra and devrel disagree. I can't comment on the most recent issue, I had no involvement, have no opinion, and don't feel like getting into a mailing list war over something that's already been resolved even if I did -- including current devrel/infra relations since it's no longer considered part of the proposed code of conduct :) -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:30:29PM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: Jon Portnoy wrote: On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: I feel really confused. Have you read the logs of the recent affair? Devrel *hadn't* requested anything, infra made an action on their own and *didn't* revert it even after being told by devrel that no action was requested. And then there was much discussion and it was largely resolved between the two projects, so I don't see how it's relevant to what I said. Well, you said that Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so often so hard before handling this particular incident. - but imho they didn't in the recent case, either. I was referring to the current pattern devrel seems locked in to, starting with current policy (and some IMO internal mishandling of the situation, but in the past and nothing a flamefest should be started over for sure). The 'infra picks up pieces' issue really should be a last resort sort of deal. Thanks for polite replies, btw. And same to you ;) -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This is how I personally think this should be handled in future. Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so often so hard before handling this particular incident. I don't think it's so unreasonable to have backup plans for preserving Gentoo when devrel cannot respond in a timely manner -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension process. It's very disappointing since Devrel has put so much work into a process that has been demoted to recommendation status. You mean the broken policy.xml everyone wants to replace? I agree some of the wording should be altered, but I do think it's sensible for infra to cover when devrel falls on its rear. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:10:20AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: Jon Portnoy wrote: On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This is how I personally think this should be handled in future. Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so often so hard before handling this particular incident. I don't think it's so unreasonable to have backup plans for preserving Gentoo when devrel cannot respond in a timely manner Come on, this is FUD. Devrel had had a plenty of time to make an action *and* to talk to infra in the recent case. They had decided *not* to do that - which means that they didn't consider it apropriate, IMHO. Or am I really missing something obvious? My point is that when devrel breaks infra has to pick up the pieces, thus it makes sense for them to have that angle covered. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote: uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. This is odd considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm pretty speechless over this one (and annoyed) so I'll leave it as is. Humor can be funny sometimes -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:27:39PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:52:33PM CDT] On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension process. It's very disappointing since Devrel has put so much work into a process that has been demoted to recommendation status. You mean the broken policy.xml everyone wants to replace? That's rather unfair. Yes, you and many others want to replace it. I think it is fair to say that many other people think it was a good, if imperfect, start. They can think what they like, I think anyone actually trying to get anything accomplished under it would disagree that it's a good start (unless you're the offender, then it's great since it takes ages for devrel to even start thinking about actually addressing the problem). Ask some of the devrel guys working on this case what they think of current policy I agree some of the wording should be altered, but I do think it's sensible for infra to cover when devrel falls on its rear. Of course, it is possible that rational people might disagree that such an event has happened here. I don't think I said it had yet. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:37:45AM -0700, Duncan wrote: What word to use in place of distribution, when one wants to include the BSDs and other non-distributions as well, other than Linux/BSD[/*ix]][/OSX], or simply *ix... *IS* there such a term? Well we could say meta operating system if we wanted to be really stupid, or we could just admit that we don't have to make a bunch of anal terminology nerds happy and continue on using sane naming -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 08:15:42AM -0700, Duncan wrote: Tell me, from someone who obviously has some FBSD experience, what advantages does Gentoo/FreeBSD have over the normal FreeBSD? Why would someone use it who is currently using regular FreeBSD, and why are you spending the time? There are obviously reasons, as you're a very talented person spending quite a bit of time on the project, but equally obviously, I'm not familiar enough with them to make a good G/FBSD representative, at this point. I'll probably be using it sometime soon because ports is archaic at best -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Unified nVidia Driver Ebuild ready for testing
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:50:51AM -0500, Peter wrote:
Also, I find it absolutely fascinating that the only people against this
concept are devs, and the only people for it are users. Remember that
users are your customers. Every effort should be made to keep them happy.
customer
n : someone who pays for goods or services [syn: {client}]
When did we start selling Gentoo?
(Admittedly we sell optical media via the Gentoo Store, but the software
is still free-as-in-beer)
--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Manifest2 format
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:39:03PM -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: [Tue Dec 06 2005, 10:04:53AM CST] As promised here the GLEP for Manifest2 support: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0044.html You know, I'd actually support a rather more abrupt transition, where we announce that on a particular date all digest files are going to be removed, thereby breaking any version of portage older than portage-x.y.z. Many people would probably miss such a deadline, but assuming that we also publicize how to download and unpack a portage rescue tarball then I would think that the actual pain would be minimal. ^^^ Haven't been to #gentoo lately have you? :) -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 09:42:19AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Nathan L. Adams wrote: What about giving QA temporary revoke powers just like infra (Curtis Napier's idea), traditionalist? Fixing devrel's resolutions policies and Curtis' idea don't have to be mutually-exclusive. The idea behind -infra temporary revoke power is to react to emergency situations (as in we must do something *now*). Not sure a repeated QA violation would fall into that emergency category. The solution is rather to have a devrel liaison inside the QA team (or the other way around). These are not closed groups. Agreed. We don't need a second devrel, rather we need to make sure QA isn't ignored by devrel -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area. No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't like devrel claim it shouldn't be able to do anything because drobbins set it up' Recruitment, conflict resolution, disciplinary issues. I.e., 'managing developers.' -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:21:42PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: if you read this whole thread you'll find that it is a grey area with different devrel people saying/thinking different things in terms of what devrel's responsibilities are It sounds like somebody needs to take a look at all of the existing documentation for this topic, write a GLEP that clarifies the matter, and present it to the council for a vote. - - who should enforce Gentoo policy (technical or otherwise)? - - what are the procedures for getting the enforcement done? - - what checks and balances are in place (and are more/clarification needed)? - - etc. Sounds to me more like people who aren't familiar with the internal structure of Gentoo don't need to be the peanut gallery when it comes to internal structural issues, but that's just me 8) As far as devrel goes, call me a traditionalist but I think while infra should be able to do emergency deactivations (and afaik nobody's ever said they shouldn't) devrel should continue to be responsible for disciplinary issues including repeated QA violations reported by the QA team -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:06:13AM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote: I'm not an ebuild dev so I may not know enough about this situation to competantly comment on it but it seems to me that QA should have some sort of limited ability to temporarily take away write access to the tree until devrel has a chance to look over the evidence and come to a decision. This would fix the problem of devrel takes to long plus it would really help to ensure higher quality work is submitted (because ebuild devs WILL stop purposely commiting bad work if they know a QA team member can take away their write access at a moments notice for repeated violations). The other thing that'd fix the 'devrel takes so long' problem would be if people would let devrel fix its resolution policies 8) (see recent -devrel ml thread) As Lance said in an earlier post, infra already does this temporary removal of access if it is an immediate security threat and then submits the evidence to devrel for followup. Why can't it work exactly the same for the QA team? If they have done their due diligence by contacting the dev in question, pointing out their mistakes and offering assistance to correct the mistakes and the dev just keeps right on commiting bad stuff QA should be able to temporarily stop them until devrel has a chance to follow up and investigate. That's what QA is, Quality Assurance, if they have no power to actually Assure Quality then why does this team even exist? QA and devrel have two different jobs. QA doesn't have to be devrel's problem and devrel tasks don't have to be QA's problem (how much do the QA folks really want to deal with the usual bitchfest when somebody with a lot of friends gets suspended for something?) if they work together on repeated problem developers. I'll give an example: Saturn car company has a great big red STOP button at every point in the assembly line that can turn off the entire manufacturing line if QA spots a mistake. The QA team does not have to ask anyone first, they simply push the button so the low quality car does not get through, remove the offending car from the line temporarily until a team investigates and decides if the quality is good enough to put it back on the assembly line. Saturn is known for the quality of it's cars because of this. The gentoo QA team should have this same ability. Does Saturn's stop button also kick the apparently responsible individual out of the building? Otherwise this analogy would work better if applied to ebuilds and the maintainership thereof, not developers and their CVS access. (And on another note, Saturn? Known for quality? Bwahahahah... err. :) ) -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 11:31:30AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: I really am curious here: a) What are the team leads spending most of their time on? Hopefully not reading this thread -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:44:56PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luca Barbato wrote: Nathan L. Adams wrote: Given every dev is complaining about how long is getting this thread and how pointless is. PLEASE AVOID REFRAINING SUCH NONSENSE point taken, working on it, don't impair our productivity more than that. thank you The only devs I've seen complain are yourself and Jon Portnoy. Nobody is forcing you to read the thread... I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that's because you don't realize how many devs are sitting back and giggling at this thread 8) You've pretty much hijacked this thread to rant and rave about QA; we're already aware of QA problems, the reason nobody is listening to you in this thread is not that nobody cares, it's that your ideas (well.. I guess I've mostly only seen one..) have not been practical or useful for reasons already explained. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done. That's not a problem, that's an opinion. I'm not at all convinced that not having every bug resolution reviewed every time is a problem, maybe you should start there :) -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Portnoy wrote: On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: So when can we discuss the salaries you're going to pay the team leads to waste fairly significant quantities of time staring over everybody's shoulder? 8) Ha! If you don't like people staring over your shoulder, or if you expect payment for your time, go work for Microsoft. ;) I mean seriously, since when is someone else looking at your work a Bad Thing in F/OSS?? I really can't get my brain around that one. I didn't say that. I'm saying that (a) team leads do not want to waste their time in such a way just to give you warm fuzzies (b) devs do not particularly want their team lead reviewing every single action they take, it sends the message that devs don't know wtf they're doing and need their hands held -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:28:20PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:19:34PM +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: I still don't see *WHY* you should be different from us. If you want to manage your recruits then they can't be gentoo staff. One reason could be that we are _not_ going to be called developers but staff. Can anybody explain me the difference between them ? Arch teams have developed a new 'figure', the arch tester. Not official gentoo staff but somehow involved with us; arch teams manage their own arch tester recruitment process. If that's the situation you want then they won't become gentoo staff. Didn't I say that was already agreed with devrel? Do I have to quit saying that I think that's wrong? No thanks. You are the only group that will make new devs apart from devrel. I still don't see why you should deserve a different treatment. AFAIK they still plan to go through devrel, just add a forums person to the recruiters team so existing recruiters aren't flooded with new staff all of a sudden -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 06:48:51AM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote: On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:28:20PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:19:34PM +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: I still don't see *WHY* you should be different from us. If you want to manage your recruits then they can't be gentoo staff. One reason could be that we are _not_ going to be called developers but staff. Can anybody explain me the difference between them ? Arch teams have developed a new 'figure', the arch tester. Not official gentoo staff but somehow involved with us; arch teams manage their own arch tester recruitment process. If that's the situation you want then they won't become gentoo staff. Didn't I say that was already agreed with devrel? Do I have to quit saying that I think that's wrong? No thanks. You are the only group that will make new devs apart from devrel. I still don't see why you should deserve a different treatment. AFAIK they still plan to go through devrel, just add a forums person to the recruiters team so existing recruiters aren't flooded with new staff all of a sudden OK, I take that back, plans were dropped for a forums-specific recruiter and instead it'd all go through the existing recruiters Either way, my point stands 8) -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 01:00:21PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 28 June 2005 12:48, Jon Portnoy wrote: AFAIK they still plan to go through devrel, just add a forums person to the recruiters team so existing recruiters aren't flooded with new staff all of a sudden This is fair and right enough. But to do that, I'm still thinking (like others) that it's an all-or-nothing: or they take the quiz or they don't be official; no official, no global moderation (if the most of the global moderators want to be official staff and the project to be an official recognized one). Why does it matter? Should this policy also apply to 'unofficial' bug wranglers who did not take the staff quiz, or is Bugzilla not an official part of Gentoo? -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:57:46PM +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: On 6/28/05, Shyam Mani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only difference I see b/w Staff and Developers is that you might not have access to CVS. You'll have an email ID and an account on dev.g.o, just like the rest of us (I'm assuming here). So what/where is the big deal about it? Maybe just that Developer sounds prettier than Staff. The rest is exactly as you stated. Now let me ask developers this: Does it really matter you if we are called developers instead of staff? Yes. You don't develop anything -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 01:01:57PM +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: On 6/28/05, Jon Portnoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Developers have CVS access; take the ebuild quiz and you're a developer, take the staff quiz (the eight-question quiz some mods apparently don't like for whatever bizarre reason...) and you're staff Does that mean that we could take the ebuild quiz too (if we wanted to)? Find a mentor to sponsor you for the process and sure -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:21:12AM -0800, Allen Parker wrote: On 6/28/05, Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Sorry for that, just tried to keep the discussion alive. I assume all snip It's alive enough without your constant/irrelevant bitching. You're a forum moderator which = staff, not developer. If you think that you're making an argument that actually makes any sense whatsoever, I invite you to click expand all in this thread and read some of your valuable contributions. IMHO having anyone besides the gentoo is for ricers crowd able to view some of the things said in the forums at all is a PR nightmare. I'd rather NOT have my clients know that every 13 year old pimply faced boy on earth that is learning linux is using my distribution. If you prefer the forums, more power to you, I think it'd be a more efficient use of bandwidth and space to replace your beloved forums with a wiki (and it'd probably be easier for people to navigate as well.) What was that about irrelevant bitching again? The issue isn't that some people do or do not like forums in general, the gentoo forums, or having forum moderators/admins. My current issue is that you, by playing devil's advocate, Ioannis, are doing nothing other than trolling. In the past, behaviors such as yours... have been described by Daniel Robbins as being a freak (see his articles on making your own distro on ibm.com). I think before posting you should perhaps take a step back and think: Am I making myself look like a bigger asshat than the other guy? Please try to refrain from posting any more stupid flames to what is supposed to be a productive development list. This is not USENET. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: splitting one source package into many binaries
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:21:22AM -0700, Duncan wrote: reasons. If I don't have an SSH server merged, it can't inadvertently be turned on somehow. SSH is apparently a dependency for something I have I'm all in favor of server vs. client flexibility but this example is kinda bogus. Assuming you don't turn it on I'd have to say the only way it'd get turned on is if your system is already compromised -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:00:57PM +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: Jon Portnoy wrote: Symlink? If MIT == MetaKit, then: ^^ ln -s MIT MetaKit I don't know about this specific case but generally speaking licenses that're similar in language and intent have very small (often cosmetic) differences; if there is even the slightest difference it (legally) qualifies as a different license and probably really should be included separately to be safe Exactly my point :) I've looked at MIT and MetaKit and: +Copyright (c) 1996-2001 Jean-Claude Wippler -Copyright (c) year copyright holders Except formatting and above diff theye are identical. You're right; chances are this is a mistake on the part of whoever wrote/committed the MetaKit ebuild, it probably had a 'COPYING' file and whoever reviewed it didn't recognize the MIT license. File a bug Either way the point still stands as far as licenses in general go 8) -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Devrel changes
I've resigned the devrel lead position; dmwaters will be filling it. I'm too unglued lately to deal with silly crap, and frankly Deedra's been doing the vast majority of devrel managing for a long time anyway. I'll be sticking around in devrel to maintain the quiz and provide input. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
