Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Pheonix] Heartbeat team force

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 04/07/10 21:24, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> with the herd "embedded" it's difficult though: the page
>> 
>> lists members for it but the page source does not
>> hold it, explicitly.  where does it come from?
> 
> It does, as can be seen in
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/index.xml?passthru=1

you refer to the members of the embedded team.
i was refering to the members of the embedded herd.
the rendered page lists

   dagger, kumba, pebenito, solar

to be working for that herd.  the link you gave does not
contain the word "dagger".  how does it get in there?



sebastian

[gentoo-dev] Re: [Gentoo Pheonix] Heartbeat team force

[Torsten Veller]

* Sebastian Pipping :
> i was refering to the members of the embedded herd.
> the rendered page lists
> 
>dagger, kumba, pebenito, solar
> 
> to be working for that herd.  the link you gave does not
> contain the word "dagger".  how does it get in there?

>From herds.xml. Really.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010

[Petteri Räty]

On 04/07/2010 12:05 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Next monthly council meeting will be at 19 April 2010, 18:00 UTC
> in #gentoo-council.
> 
> If you have any topics you want us to discuss or even vote about,
> simply followup to this message.
> 
> Ulrich
> 

Two things already discussed on this mailing list but I don't see a
definite consensus so taking for a spin through council.

1. Keywording bugs with a single arch:

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3f8603c9bc97b7b0bcf59782848c2650.xml

Options to vote in order:

After the maintainer has accepted that a package is good for stable (by
being the assignee or reporter).
a) The preferred way is to assign the bug to the single arch in question
b) The bug can be either assigned to the arch or the arch can be CCed
   and the maintainer is the assignee
c) The maintainer is the assignee and the arch is CCed

2. Bugzilla resolutions

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_9cb8abe1d6608e4fb4e525833eea897b.xml

Vote on:
- Remove LATER and REMIND from resolutions
- Add LATER as a KEYWORD
- Add resolution OBSOLETE

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010

[Brian Harring]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 11:05:34AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Next monthly council meeting will be at 19 April 2010, 18:00 UTC
> in #gentoo-council.
> 
> If you have any topics you want us to discuss or even vote about,
> simply followup to this message.

VALID_USE-
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_b0e868626019f497eba47194c34e5421.xml

Historically, no PMS change has been glep'ified, but if the council 
wants PMS changes to start being glep'd I'd be willing to guinea pig 
this one- earliest I'd have the glep out the door is saturday also.

Few additional notes to the proposal-
1) few has offered up his time patch wise.
2) if he backs out, I'll throw in a gurantee of having it done prior 
to the next council meeting (realistically I can do it faster, I just 
have other fish I'd like to be frying).
3) dev feedback generally has been positive, exempting ciaran's views 
on it- please review those (if you'd like a summation I can provide 
one).
4) if there are questions re: use cycle breaking or other bits, feel 
free to ask prior please- council meeting times unfortunately right 
now intersect badly with my paying work so it's hard to be online to 
answer questions during the meeting (that said per the norm I'll try).
5) final reminder- part of the impetus of this is that if this is 
punted till EAPI5, it forces pkg_pretend as the interim use constraint 
checking- this has some nasty implications on the use cycle breaking 
intentions since it would require everyone to upgrade their ebuilds to 
EAPI5 if they've got use state constraints.  Basically screws things 
up a bit and requires a potentially pointless EAPI bump for the sake 
of trying to knock EAPI4 out the door now (regardless of how long it 
takes to stable portage for it) rather than adding a few weeks in.

Thanks-
~harring


pgppE5c5febGm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 05:02:25 -0700
Brian Harring  wrote:
> 4) if there are questions re: use cycle breaking or other bits, feel 
> free to ask prior please- council meeting times unfortunately right 
> now intersect badly with my paying work so it's hard to be online to 
> answer questions during the meeting (that said per the norm I'll try).

Please detail your cycle breaking algorithm that works in such a way
that it's guaranteed not to toggle flags that will break a system, but
that does not require any changes to be made to ebuilds etc telling the
package manager what those flags are.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010

[Patrick Lauer]

On 04/08/10 15:29, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 05:02:25 -0700
> Brian Harring  wrote:
>> 4) if there are questions re: use cycle breaking or other bits, feel 
>> free to ask prior please- council meeting times unfortunately right 
>> now intersect badly with my paying work so it's hard to be online to 
>> answer questions during the meeting (that said per the norm I'll try).
> 
> Please detail your cycle breaking algorithm that works in such a way
> that it's guaranteed not to toggle flags that will break a system, but
> that does not require any changes to be made to ebuilds etc telling the
> package manager what those flags are.
> 
That would violate the Entscheidungsproblem.

But why would you make the cycle breaking depend on an oracle? Once we
have the method in place we can find the two special cases and think of
ways to fix them. Abandoning the idea as a whole just because there may
be a corner case that isn't as easy appears quite silly to me.

Brian's proposal is the only one I've seen that is deterministic and
sane, so I think we should figure out if we can improve it instead of
giving up at the first bump in the road.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:08:57 +0200
Patrick Lauer  wrote:
> > Please detail your cycle breaking algorithm that works in such a way
> > that it's guaranteed not to toggle flags that will break a system,
> > but that does not require any changes to be made to ebuilds etc
> > telling the package manager what those flags are.
> > 
> That would violate the Entscheidungsproblem.
> 
> But why would you make the cycle breaking depend on an oracle? Once we
> have the method in place we can find the two special cases and think
> of ways to fix them.

The problem is, the special cases where it goes horribly wrong aren't
rare. As soon as you start looking for cycles, you find flags like
'build', 'bootstrap' and 'acl'.

> Abandoning the idea as a whole just because there may be a corner
> case that isn't as easy appears quite silly to me.

I'm not after abandoning the idea. I'm after doing it properly, and
doing it properly starts by handling the problematic cases rather than
pretending they don't exist.

We've already seen repeatedly what goes wrong when you start with the
assumption "it'll probably work" and then pile on special exceptions
every time someone gets screwed over by something you didn't think of.
Why don't we go with "we'll only do it for things where we know it'll
work" instead this time?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Pheonix] Heartbeat team force

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:20:11PM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Current results
> ===
> Bug load per developer
> --
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~sping/bug-heartbeat/report--bug-count-by-person.html
What's the actual math that you're using (it wasn't clear in your repo).

> Question to be answered
> ===
>  - herds.xml does not hold membership lists for
>all projects, not even herds.  The load
>evaluator needs access to complete mappings
>to generate output close to reality.
>How can such a mapping be made without
>duplicating data?
herds, project files, aliases: 
- 3 sets of non-overlapping data.
- lets ignore the private aliases for now, very few of them should get
  package bugs.

Report on unresolved bugs owned by hidden aliases:
- 11 of the 93 aliases have bugs
- 258 bugs in total
- Those with > 10 bugs:
- infra, 78
- bugzilla, 47
- retirement, 28
- mirror-admin, 21
- forum-mods, 20
- devrel, 19
- recruiters, 19

>  - Pulling XML out of Bugzilla does no longer
>feel right with this amount of data:
>it's 15,000 open bugs that need to be
>refreshed periodically in chunks of 100 bugs
>(Bugzilla's limit) each.  That's 150 request
>for a full sync.  How can that be improved?
Lets talk more about what queries you're using, and we can probably work
something out.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgp1RnvDCkrSG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Ryan Hill]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:12:49 +0200
Ben de Groot  wrote:

> After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
> have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
> users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive
> feedback on this new project is welcome.

why are we setting up a user wiki when a very popular one already exists?  it
seems like a complete duplication of effort.  i'm not saying don't do it, i'm
just baffled why we would.

> - moderation

can we can lock certain pages down to dev edits only?  i'd like to
document some of our policies/best practices that don't seem to be in
writing anywhere (after vetting them on the list of course).


-- 
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Ben de Groot]

On 8 April 2010 21:51, Ryan Hill  wrote:
> why are we setting up a user wiki when a very popular one already exists?

Because some devs request things like this:

> can we can lock certain pages down to dev edits only?

In our wiki we will be able to.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Qt project lead developer
Gentoo Wiki project lead

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Ryan Hill]

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:13:07 +0200
Ben de Groot  wrote:

> On 8 April 2010 21:51, Ryan Hill  wrote:
> > why are we setting up a user wiki when a very popular one already exists?
> 
> Because some devs request things like this:
> 
> > can we can lock certain pages down to dev edits only?
> 
> In our wiki we will be able to.

you misunderstood me.  i've wanted a dev wiki for years.  i just don't see why
it should also be promoted as a user wiki when one already exists.


-- 
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Pheonix] Heartbeat team force

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 04/08/10 21:16, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:20:11PM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> Current results
>> ===
>> Bug load per developer
>> --
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~sping/bug-heartbeat/report--bug-count-by-person.html
> What's the actual math that you're using (it wasn't clear in your repo).

let me try in python:

load[dev] = bugs[dev] \
+ reduce(sum, [bugs(h)/members(h) for h in herds[dev]])

it's personal bugs plus a fraction of all herds you're in.
makes sense?


>>  - Pulling XML out of Bugzilla does no longer
>>feel right with this amount of data:
>>it's 15,000 open bugs that need to be
>>refreshed periodically in chunks of 100 bugs
>>(Bugzilla's limit) each.  That's 150 request
>>for a full sync.  How can that be improved?
> Lets talk more about what queries you're using, and we can probably work
> something out.

speaking of queries would limit me in what i may ask the data in the
future.  i have a full dump on open bugs more or less so i can ask them
whatever i like.  it's more flexible to me and makes much easier code
than SQL stuff would.

i guess that doesn't make it easier?



sebastian

RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Sylvain Alain]

The official wiki can be use by powerusers who want to write some pretty good 
doc.

A lot of powerusers can write excellent doc on the gentoo forum right now, so 
they don't need to by Gentoo Dev to right excellent stuff.

I don't see your point.





> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> From: dirtye...@gentoo.org
> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:56:04 -0600
> 
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:13:07 +0200
> Ben de Groot  wrote:
> 
> > On 8 April 2010 21:51, Ryan Hill  wrote:
> > > why are we setting up a user wiki when a very popular one already exists?
> > 
> > Because some devs request things like this:
> > 
> > > can we can lock certain pages down to dev edits only?
> > 
> > In our wiki we will be able to.
> 
> you misunderstood me.  i've wanted a dev wiki for years.  i just don't see why
> it should also be promoted as a user wiki when one already exists.
> 
> 
> -- 
> fonts,by design, by neglect
> gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
> wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
  
_
Videos that have everyone talking! Now also in HD!
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724465

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Ryan Hill]

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 21:37:46 +
Sylvain Alain  wrote:

> 
> The official wiki can be use by powerusers who want to write some pretty good 
> doc.
> 
> A lot of powerusers can write excellent doc on the gentoo forum right now, so 
> they don't need to by Gentoo Dev to right excellent stuff.
> 
> I don't see your point.

They already write great stuff on http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/.  I think having
two different places to put this kind of stuff might split the contributor
base.  It'd be nice if we could either merge the two or make the official
wiki about developing with Gentoo rather than how to use Gentoo, but in any
case I'm just happy to have somewhere to stick things.


-- 
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Sylvain Alain]

Indeed, that's why I don't want to have a wiki for devs only. The Gentoo wiki 
must be for the community and by the community :P

There are many Gentoo experts that don't want to be officially devs.

d2_racing


> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> From: dirtye...@gentoo.org
> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 16:55:36 -0600
> 
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 21:37:46 +
> Sylvain Alain  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The official wiki can be use by powerusers who want to write some pretty 
> > good doc.
> > 
> > A lot of powerusers can write excellent doc on the gentoo forum right now, 
> > so they don't need to by Gentoo Dev to right excellent stuff.
> > 
> > I don't see your point.
> 
> They already write great stuff on http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/.  I think having
> two different places to put this kind of stuff might split the contributor
> base.  It'd be nice if we could either merge the two or make the official
> wiki about developing with Gentoo rather than how to use Gentoo, but in any
> case I'm just happy to have somewhere to stick things.
> 
> 
> -- 
> fonts,by design, by neglect
> gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
> wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
  
_
Live connected. Get Hotmail & Messenger on your phone.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724462

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Patrick Nagel]

Hi,

On 2010-04-08 19:51 UTC Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:12:49 +0200
> 
> Ben de Groot  wrote:
> > After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
> > have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
> > users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive
> > feedback on this new project is welcome.
> 
> why are we setting up a user wiki when a very popular one already exists? 
> it seems like a complete duplication of effort.  i'm not saying don't do
> it, i'm just baffled why we would.

Well, one reason could be, that the "unofficial" one lost its whole database 
once, and there were other multiple multi-day outages in the past. I expect an 
official Wiki to have a reasonable availability and not losing most of the 
content, breaking links all over the net for months.

Patrick.

-- 
Key ID: 0x86E346D4http://patrick-nagel.net/key.asc
Fingerprint: 7745 E1BE FA8B FBAD 76AB 2BFC C981 E686 86E3 46D4


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Duncan]

Patrick Nagel posted on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:42:40 +0800 as excerpted:

> On 2010-04-08 19:51 UTC Ryan Hill wrote:
>> 
>> why are we setting up a user wiki when a very popular one already
>> exists? it seems like a complete duplication of effort.  i'm not saying
>> don't do it, i'm just baffled why we would.
> 
> Well, one reason could be, that the "unofficial" one lost its whole
> database once, and there were other multiple multi-day outages in the
> past. I expect an official Wiki to have a reasonable availability and
> not losing most of the content, breaking links all over the net for
> months.

In addition to that, various invitations have been and I expect will 
continue to be made, to the guy running the current wiki.  For whatever 
reason(s), he doesn't seem particularly interested in running an official 
Gentoo wiki.

In some ways I can't say I blame him.  There's a lot of politics that goes 
into anything Gentoo-official, and it's perfectly sane for someone to love 
Gentoo but have no interest whatsoever in jumping thru all those political 
hoops he'd ultimately have to jump thru, or being the political pawn the 
wiki could likely be if it's as popular and useful as people hope.

Likewise, Gentoo's uncomfortable officially linking to something they 
don't control in any way, shape, or form (except to the extent that we 
could arguably pull his domain name for trademark reasons, if things got 
ugly enough, tho that'd be incredibly bad for EVERYONE, so nobody wants to 
go there!).

Regardless of how justified or not those reasons are, they exist, and are 
a practical barrier to the current wiki and owner becoming the official 
one.  Yet the feeling is, and I as a Gentoo power user agree, we need a 
wiki that we can officially point to, a place for documentation that 
hasn't made it thru the formal Gentoo-doc and GuideXML process, and may in 
fact never rise to that level, but is still valuable.

Also, there's the licensing issue.  The current wiki has a non-commercial 
clause for its content licensing that doesn't seem appropriate for an 
official Gentoo wiki.  And no one except the individual content 
contributors can change that, so practically speaking, a new wiki without 
that clause is needed.  Individual contributors can copy their own content 
over, of course, and other content can be rewritten, but the content 
cannot be wholesale transferred, nor will it be.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman