Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

Ned Ludd wrote:
> I would be in favor of a  gentoo-dev-announce list if it allowed me 
> to unsubscribe from this list.

Sure, if you want to just accept any decisions rather than participate
in making them. The -dev-announce list should be for finalized
decisions. It should be too late to dispute them once they're sent to it.

For important discussions, it may be worth announcing that they're
starting -- e.g., for a GLEP -- so people could then be sure to pay
attention to that discussion on -dev.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

Lance Albertson wrote:
> Outside if this being more centered around dev-only announcements, could
> the current -announce list suffice? I'd hate to need to subscribe to
> yet-another-announcement-list (or make our developers/users). Our
> -announce list certainly has the historical presence where the most of
> our user-base would see something. I guess if this isn't the case, then
> I don't see a problem with the new list.

I agree with what you're saying about the -announce list, but this has a
different audience.

I see -announce as a list that all Gentoo _users_ must/should be
subscribed to. I wouldn't want to flood this list with announcements
that purely affect developers, thus a new list.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 24 June 2006 18:54, Edward Catmur wrote:
> * Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only
> track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree
> (and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is vulnerable.
>
> - Remove from the examples any suggestion that one should check out the
> whole tree when contributing. Point out that one should not svn up
> sunrise/ as part of updating Portage.

valid point i think

ive never admined svn repos before, but would it be possible to shut off anon 
access to the non-reviewed tree ?  i think that would cover this issue as 
people who get bit by bugs in the non-reviewed tree would (and should) be 
able to just go in and fix it themselves :)

> * Conflicts between contributors (social): Alice adds an ebuild; Bob
> makes a (maybe "obvious") change; Alice thinks the change is incorrect,
> and, feeling that the ebuild is her property, reverts the change. A
> revert war erupts. Many casualties.
>
> - Create a social structure to enable Alice and Bob to communicate and
> resolve their differences of opinion. Forums? Wiki? IRC? Bugzilla? I
> would argue there should be One True location for this to occur; /not/
> bugzilla (bugspam); /not/ IRC (impermanence).

revert wars are retarded on the base level.  if people are unable to solve 
issues via communication channels, i'd say just toss the people involved and 
the material in question.
-mike


pgp5Ydk0ahbAm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 24 June 2006 09:12, Thomas Cort wrote:
> http://gentoo-sunrise.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/HowToCommit

this is a stupid nit pick thing (but i'm good at that)

the examples should use $ as the shell prompt, not #

pwnt!
-mike


pgpQu9Pb2ha9V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 24 June 2006 00:07, James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.  Therefore, technically, if it is against the
> rules for projects and/or devs to use bugzilla for unofficial
> overlays.  then it is against the rules for the java team to use 
> bugzilla for their migration-overlay.

what rules ?

> As for the fact that the migration overlay is in the process of being
> moved to o.g.o, "in the process of" doesn't mean it's already been
> done, and until it's finished, the above statement stands.
>
> Props *and* apologies to the java team for this, but it looks like you
> need to move the overlay *before* you finish the migration process
> now.

the java overlay has existed far longer than overlays.g.o.  to demand they 
halt all development and they move their stuff from gentooexperimental.org to 
overlays.g.o so they can suddenly be allowed to use bugzilla/gentoo infra is 
just asine.

java devs are getting work done, dont sit there and waste their time with 
rules such as this.
-mike


pgpQIZGABQh0d.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Lance Albertson]

Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:30:31 -0500
> Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>
>>> I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be
>>> posted to a separate, moderated (or restricted posting)
>>> gentoo-dev-announce list to ensure that no developers lose track of
>>> what really matters. Hopefully, this will also help to give more
>>> focus to discussions on gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get
>>> a real decision to send to gentoo-dev-announce.
>> Outside if this being more centered around dev-only announcements,
>> could the current -announce list suffice? I'd hate to need to
>> subscribe to yet-another-announcement-list (or make our
>> developers/users). Our -announce list certainly has the historical
>> presence where the most of our user-base would see something. I guess
>> if this isn't the case, then I don't see a problem with the new list.
> 
> The main problem with -announce is that noone has a clue how to get
> stuff posted there, similar situation as with the frontpage.
> Not really convenient if you have to bug people just to get a hint who
> to bribe to get stuff posted.

Those are issues that can be delt with. I wondered if this was one of
the reasons behind the idea. If we need to work out a better process,
just let us know :) I don't recall someone asking us lately about it. I
don't know all the specifics, but I know we can fix it or make it work.

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Marius Mauch]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:30:31 -0500
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> > I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be
> > posted to a separate, moderated (or restricted posting)
> > gentoo-dev-announce list to ensure that no developers lose track of
> > what really matters. Hopefully, this will also help to give more
> > focus to discussions on gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get
> > a real decision to send to gentoo-dev-announce.
> 
> Outside if this being more centered around dev-only announcements,
> could the current -announce list suffice? I'd hate to need to
> subscribe to yet-another-announcement-list (or make our
> developers/users). Our -announce list certainly has the historical
> presence where the most of our user-base would see something. I guess
> if this isn't the case, then I don't see a problem with the new list.

The main problem with -announce is that noone has a clue how to get
stuff posted there, similar situation as with the frontpage.
Not really convenient if you have to bug people just to get a hint who
to bribe to get stuff posted.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Ned Ludd]

On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 20:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This topic has come up in the past, and I'd like to revive it once
> again. The gentoo-dev list has gotten a lower and lower signal to noise
> ratio over the past year or two, and it's difficult to dig out the stuff
> that's truly required reading.
> 
> I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
> a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
> to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.
> Hopefully, this will also help to give more focus to discussions on
> gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get a real decision to send to
> gentoo-dev-announce.


I would be in favor of a  gentoo-dev-announce list if it allowed me 
to unsubscribe from this list.

-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Lance Albertson]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
> a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
> to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.
> Hopefully, this will also help to give more focus to discussions on
> gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get a real decision to send to
> gentoo-dev-announce.

Outside if this being more centered around dev-only announcements, could
the current -announce list suffice? I'd hate to need to subscribe to
yet-another-announcement-list (or make our developers/users). Our
-announce list certainly has the historical presence where the most of
our user-base would see something. I guess if this isn't the case, then
I don't see a problem with the new list.

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation

[Joshua Jackson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, Im gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEngJPSENan+PfizARAtd+AJsExp/AioX1rRHKa2Gxxo+NvMmnhACfee/H
v7s1dc4z8voTjxfMW/FivRI=
=sv3j
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

This topic has come up in the past, and I'd like to revive it once
again. The gentoo-dev list has gotten a lower and lower signal to noise
ratio over the past year or two, and it's difficult to dig out the stuff
that's truly required reading.

I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.
Hopefully, this will also help to give more focus to discussions on
gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get a real decision to send to
gentoo-dev-announce.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] Resignation

[Jory A. Pratt]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

As most are aware I was only active dev in mozilla herd. I have decided
that it is time to leave gentoo, which leaves herd unmaintained.
Security team can do as they wish, they do not take the user to mind
when they want to make hasty decision, without first attempting to work
the herd to resolve a security issue that is in the tree. Our users have
depreciated over the last year due to devs and just the direction gentoo
has decided to go so I make the move with them.

Good luck to everyone and were ever there ventures might take them..

Later
Jory

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEnfUfGDfjNg8unQIRAtWbAKChlFsBk0uvPEASA36UaiXRLboKuQCgl3Q5
TWscpe7N6Q5iT66FP5jGK0Y=
=sTh9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise - Update.

[Luca Barbato]

Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> Hi, 
> We held a meeting earlier this evening between User Relations, Project
> Sunrise, brix and kloeri (unfortunately wolf31o2 was unable to attend)
> to discuss the current and future direction of Project Sunrise.

Uff, then I have to find another issue for my experiment about
constructive discussion in the ml!

=/

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise - Update.

[Christel Dahlskjaer]

Hi, 
We held a meeting earlier this evening between User Relations, Project
Sunrise, brix and kloeri (unfortunately wolf31o2 was unable to attend)
to discuss the current and future direction of Project Sunrise. The
Sunrise developers felt that they were unable to change the format of
the project in such a way as to address the objections and concerns held
by other developers and projects, but have instead agreed to remove the
project page from the Gentoo website and mkove it to an entirely
unofficial, unsupported project. If the overlay seems to keep a
reasonable level of quality control then interested users can of course
be referred there should they require an ebuild not available in the
main tree, but on the understanding that it is completely unsupported by
Gentoo.

In the meantime, other developers will explore the possibility of
promoting and extending work on proxy-maintainership of packages within
the tree as a way to improve the management of packages in the tree
which no developer is able to maintain properly. Most people felt that
this would help solve the most pressing problems that Sunrise attempts
to address, while allowing the unofficial Sunrise to continue to work
towards its other aims. 

Please ignore any noise in the log, I'm afraid it is the entire log of
the 24hours of the day and thus may contain some off-topic chit chat at
the start and finish. 

Kind Regards, 
Christel Dahlskjaer



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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Donnie Berkholz]

Luca Barbato wrote:
> Edward Catmur wrote:
> Critic 4
>> * Conflicts between contributors (social): Alice adds an ebuild; Bob
>> makes a (maybe "obvious") change; Alice thinks the change is incorrect,
>> and, feeling that the ebuild is her property, reverts the change. A
>> revert war erupts. Many casualties.
> 
> Reply 4a
>> - Create a social structure to enable Alice and Bob to communicate and
>> resolve their differences of opinion.
> 
> Reply 4b
> - ban warmongers.

We can't even do that in Gentoo.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Luca Barbato]

Edward Catmur wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 13:05 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> (from critics)
>> - What is wrong with the model (each point 2 lines at least, 4 at most)
>> - What you'd do as alternative as the criticized point ( 2 lines again)

Let me reformat a bit
>

Critic 1
> * Simplicity: The FAQ claims that Sunrise is simpler than Bugzilla. It
> is - for users. Contributing is a lot more involved than with Bugzilla;
> Sunrise is supposed to be about making contributing easier.

Reply 1
> - Admit this in the FAQ. Where possible, write svn wrappers to make the
> contributing process easier.


Critic 2
> * Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only
> track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree
> (and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is vulnerable.

Reply 2a
> - Remove from the examples any suggestion that one should check out the
> whole tree when contributing.

Reply 2b
- Point out that one should not svn up sunrise/ as part of updating Portage.

Reply 2c
- sunrise/playground won't let anonymous fetch.

Critic 3
> * Conflicts between contributors (technical): Alice adds an ebuild; Bob
> makes a change; Alice makes another change and discovers it conflicts
> with Bob's change in the repo. Alice has not used subversion and doesn't
> know how to resolve conflicts.

Reply 3a
- People are supposed to learn svn in order to contribute.

Reply 3b
- Tutorials will be provided about conflict resolution

Critic 4
> * Conflicts between contributors (social): Alice adds an ebuild; Bob
> makes a (maybe "obvious") change; Alice thinks the change is incorrect,
> and, feeling that the ebuild is her property, reverts the change. A
> revert war erupts. Many casualties.

Reply 4a
> - Create a social structure to enable Alice and Bob to communicate and
> resolve their differences of opinion.

Reply 4b
- ban warmongers.


Critic 5
> * More to keep track of: With bugzilla you have a single URL, from which
> you receive threaded email updates. Sunrise adds /two/ svn directories
> plus whatever is used for discussion.

Reply 5a
- Make contributors subscribe to a svnlog ml, use trac-like features.


Ed if you think this doesn't show your ideas please send another using
this format.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Edward Catmur]

On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 13:05 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> (from critics)
> - What is wrong with the model (each point 2 lines at least, 4 at most)
> - What you'd do as alternative as the criticized point ( 2 lines again)

* Simplicity: The FAQ claims that Sunrise is simpler than Bugzilla. It
is - for users. Contributing is a lot more involved than with Bugzilla;
Sunrise is supposed to be about making contributing easier.
- Admit this in the FAQ. Where possible, write svn wrappers to make the
contributing process easier.

* Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only
track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree
(and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is vulnerable.
- Remove from the examples any suggestion that one should check out the
whole tree when contributing. Point out that one should not svn up
sunrise/ as part of updating Portage.

* Conflicts between contributors (technical): Alice adds an ebuild; Bob
makes a change; Alice makes another change and discovers it conflicts
with Bob's change in the repo. Alice has not used subversion and doesn't
know how to resolve conflicts.
- Document the subversion conflict resolution process. Advertise that
you will be available on IRC to help with these types of problems.
Explain to use "svn st -u" and "svn up" to sync before making changes.

* Conflicts between contributors (social): Alice adds an ebuild; Bob
makes a (maybe "obvious") change; Alice thinks the change is incorrect,
and, feeling that the ebuild is her property, reverts the change. A
revert war erupts. Many casualties.
- Create a social structure to enable Alice and Bob to communicate and
resolve their differences of opinion. Forums? Wiki? IRC? Bugzilla? I
would argue there should be One True location for this to occur; /not/
bugzilla (bugspam); /not/ IRC (impermanence).

* More to keep track of: With bugzilla you have a single URL, from which
you receive threaded email updates. Sunrise adds /two/ svn directories
plus whatever is used for discussion.
- Create a summary page that links to bugzilla and discussions, and
tracks versions and changes, and all other relevant information. Allow
(require?) contributors to subscribe to email updates from the summary
page.

That's all for now. I might think of more.

Ed

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-wireless/gtkskan package.masked pending removal

[Petteri Räty]

Petteri Räty wrote:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75674#c8
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48686#c1
> 
> Copied from second link:
> 
>> I have announced the end-of-life for this package on gentoo-dev and
>> gentoo-user, as:
>>
>> 1) It only compiles against gtk+-1.2, which is highly outdated.
>> 2) It only compiles against GNOME 1.4, which is even more highly a piece of
>> junk.
>> 3) The upstream maintainers haven't touched it in over three years(!)
>>
>> I think it's time to let this tool go:)
>>
>> If you vehemently object, please tell me by reopening this bug and explaining
>> me the error of my ways. Otherwise, it'll be removed in two weeks' time.
> 
> Well it seems this wasn't removed so it is now package.masked and will
> be removed after the usual month.
> 

Sorry about the noise. The package in question is net-wireless/gtkskan.

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] net-wireless/package.masked pending removal

[Petteri Räty]

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75674#c8
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48686#c1

Copied from second link:

> I have announced the end-of-life for this package on gentoo-dev and
> gentoo-user, as:
> 
> 1) It only compiles against gtk+-1.2, which is highly outdated.
> 2) It only compiles against GNOME 1.4, which is even more highly a piece of
> junk.
> 3) The upstream maintainers haven't touched it in over three years(!)
> 
> I think it's time to let this tool go:)
> 
> If you vehemently object, please tell me by reopening this bug and explaining
> me the error of my ways. Otherwise, it'll be removed in two weeks' time.

Well it seems this wasn't removed so it is now package.masked and will
be removed after the usual month.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Masking perl-core/ExtUtils-MakeMaker, eventual removal

[Michael Cummings]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

OK, I attempted this in November of 05 (then forgot?), but since no one
responded to my last round, it has been removed. Happy gentoo'ing,

~mcummings

Michael Cummings wrote:
> Once upon a time ago, we added ExtUtils-MakeMaker to the tree to deal
> with some dramatic changes between perl versions and what they
> supported. The time for that has passed, and this package only serves to
> cause problems with the perl tree. Unless there are objects, I intend to
> remove this package from the tree within the week.
> 
> ~mcummings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEnV4Cq1ztTp5/Ti4RAhn9AKCs6pl4DfjM8f15XuvVPmlopxwV/wCgscxu
S3lecKR5xPgyg8SQe41g2j8=
=CXEB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[James Potts]

On 6/24/06, Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:07:52AM -0500, James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.

_Technically_ probably maybe, but please read what already has been
said about it in this thread - there are big differences between those
to projects, such as the sunrise being technically suspended as an
official project and the java project not.
Anyway, all of this (including my reply, sorry) already has been
discussed in this thread before, no need to repeat history. ;-)


Let me be clear on this:  From what I understand, the rule as written
prevents unofficial overlays from using certain fields in bugzilla.
It says nothing about the status of the project(s) behind such
overlays.  So the argument that this should not apply to the java team
because the project is still official, and sunrise is not, is bogus.
This ruling applies to overlays, not projects.

On 6/24/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Question is, do we care about blindly following a policy that obviously was
targetting at something completely different, or do we care about getting stuff
done?

There's nothing as unproductive as political correctness.

Just my 0.02 SFr,


I hate to put it to you this way, but if you give people an inch,
they'll take a mile.  Yes, political correctnes is unproductive.  This
is why decisions like the one made here need to be thought out better
before being made.  But once the decision is made, it should be
applied equally, or not at all.

As for the decision that led to this mess, I'd like to see it on the
agenda for the next Council meeting.  I really don't agree with it (or
rather the way it was worded), and I can see others don't either.
Unfortunately, I don't know if I have the authority to request this,
since I'm not a dev.

--Arek
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Lance Albertson]

Patrick Lauer wrote:

>> was
>> suspended in the first place. You're taking every comment that's been
>> made against it as a personal attack and have been ignorant in *all* the
>> technical details. 
> Well ... if the technical details are "it will cause the end of the
> world" it's hard to evaluate them to more than "random noise that can be
> ignored". I really don't see how such an overlay would cause more
> problems than providing the ebuilds unsorted, untested and without any
> QA checks in bugzilla (which is official hardware, eh?). If you had
> looked at sunrise recently you'd have noticed that those that work on it
> try to do their best and reach a quite high quality standard. So you get
> fixed, quality checked ebuilds, dev candidates and happy users.

If all you saw was a bunch of 'noise' then I'm afraid you're not seeing
the whole picture then. I admit there was *some* noise, but a good chunk
 of it had excellent technical details. I fail to see how your
assessment is factual until you prove to me exact technical points that
were viewed as 'end of the world noise'. If its that hard to evaluate,
then perhaps you should ask your peers on their opinions on the
technical details. It never hurts to get a second opinion on something
if you're unsure.

>> If you would open your eyes and mind a little you'll
>> see that there are better ways to making your project work better. 
> I could say the same to you - there's always room for improvement. 

I'm not the one making excuses about facts and calling it 'noise'
without proving it as such.

>> I
>> don't think continuing it on unofficial hardware without fixing the
>> details is the best idea. 
> That's the only way to not have it die due to ressource starvation. Get
> the people to not work on it for 3 months and noone will remember that
> it even existed (which might be the goal of some)

What the heck does resource starvation have to do improving the project
idea and fixing it? Moving it and 'calling it good' isn't the same as
'lets stop this whole thing and look at all the points made by our
developers'. If you really think that the project will die in 3 months
because its not online, then perhaps you should reconsider the
scope/goal of the project. You can accomplish a lot if you work out the
RFC for the idea ahead of time. It would have solved all the issues
brought up in the last few weeks instead of this constant bickering and
childless recants. What hurt will happen if you halt the project for a
month or so to come up with a better idea? I'd say if we could come up
with a better solution that makes us all happy, lets do it.

>> You're just digging your hole deeper and not
>> fixing the issues we had in the first place. Please reconsider what
>> you're doing.
> 
> I think the strong reactions from people like jakub (which now force 
> the java overlay to do a stupid move just because otherwise they get
> problems with bugs!?) show that we have a strong disagreement here
> with one side responding to every demand and the other side just making
> more demands. But eh, I'm not even part of Sunrise, so I probably
> shouldn't even care.

You wouldn't have to deal with the 'demands' if you had come up with an
RFC in the first place and ironed out the details. Instead you've taken
a good chunk of everything mentioned as a wrong implementation and
decided that its noise and ignored it completely. Has the idea of "Hey,
a lot of people think we're doing this the wrong way. Maybe we should
stop the project, work out the details like we should have, and possibly
regain some trust within our developer community? Then after that, we
can open it back up again?" crossed your mind?

I fail to see the logic in this attempt of ignoring technical details.
If you don't know how to communicate well in a technical discussion,
just say it or look to your peers for help. There's no need in coming up
with these outlandish assumptions to make it look like you're trying to
contribute to the technical discussion. I have yet to see any of your
responses to show that you have any intentions on dealing with the
technical discussions. The more I see is you trying make a fight out of
this while my goal is to iron out the technical details before it goes live.

Yes, sometimes it takes a while to get that done, but doesn't it make
sense to do it right the *first* time than do deal with the crap you've
delt with in the last few weeks? This all could have been avoided if you
had written out an RFC and asked for comments on it *before hand*. Don't
you agree?

And please please please ... Keep your responses to a technical level
and don't bring in personal issues. I have tried to keep my reply with
that in mind. If you have personal issues with my reply, then please
reply to me in private as we don't need to have all of -dev seeing those
issues.

That is all :-)

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  

Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Georgi Georgiev]

maillog: 24/06/2006-09:12:59(-0400): Thomas Cort types
> > What I need:
> > (from proponents)
> > - A list of issue sunrise wants to address (each point 2 lines at most)
> > - How it will be implemented
> > (from critics)
> > - What is wrong with the model (each point 2 lines at least, 4 at most)
> > - What you'd do as alternative as the criticized point ( 2 lines again)
> 
> Before people start replying, they should make sure they are familiar
> with the updated model/policies (read: they've changed since the
> original discussion on -dev). The new stuff is available at:
> http://gentoo-sunrise.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/SunriseFaq and
> http://gentoo-sunrise.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/HowToCommit

:))

http://gentoo-sunrise.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/SunriseFaq#WhyshouldthisbeonofficialGentoohardware

-- 
()   Georgi Georgiev   () If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.   ()
()[EMAIL PROTECTED]()()
() http://www.gg3.net/ ()()


pgp3WNs4R4PUg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Thomas Cort]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:36:23 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It isn't in the format useful for a discussion point by point, genstef
> is converting it, I hope.

Yes, this is true. I was just pointing out that things have changed
since the original proposal and that before people begin bringing up
their points, they should check to see if the issues have already been
addressed.

-Thomas


pgphydpPSsqFo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Luca Barbato]

Thomas Cort wrote:

> 
> Before people start replying, they should make sure they are familiar
> with the updated model/policies (read: they've changed since the
> original discussion on -dev). The new stuff is available at:
> http://gentoo-sunrise.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/SunriseFaq and
> http://gentoo-sunrise.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/HowToCommit

It isn't in the format useful for a discussion point by point, genstef
is converting it, I hope.

lu




-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Thomas Cort]

> What I need:
> (from proponents)
> - A list of issue sunrise wants to address (each point 2 lines at most)
> - How it will be implemented
> (from critics)
> - What is wrong with the model (each point 2 lines at least, 4 at most)
> - What you'd do as alternative as the criticized point ( 2 lines again)

Before people start replying, they should make sure they are familiar
with the updated model/policies (read: they've changed since the
original discussion on -dev). The new stuff is available at:
http://gentoo-sunrise.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/SunriseFaq and
http://gentoo-sunrise.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/HowToCommit


pgpdZ34r8hJ2R.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Simon Stelling]

James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.  Therefore, technically, if it is against the
> rules for projects and/or devs to use bugzilla for unofficial
> overlays, then it is against the rules for the java team to use
> bugzilla for their migration-overlay.
> 
> As for the fact that the migration overlay is in the process of being
> moved to o.g.o, "in the process of" doesn't mean it's already been
> done, and until it's finished, the above statement stands.
> 
> Props *and* apologies to the java team for this, but it looks like you
> need to move the overlay *before* you finish the migration process
> now.

Question is, do we care about blindly following a policy that obviously was
targetting at something completely different, or do we care about getting stuff
done?

There's nothing as unproductive as political correctness.

Just my 0.02 SFr,

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Wernfried Haas]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:07:52AM -0500, James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.

_Technically_ probably maybe, but please read what already has been
said about it in this thread - there are big differences between those
to projects, such as the sunrise being technically suspended as an
official project and the java project not.
Anyway, all of this (including my reply, sorry) already has been
discussed in this thread before, no need to repeat history. ;-)

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgp1nczxaRCUg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2

[Luca Barbato]

I'm just trying to start again just to have it as example on how to be
productive and critical at the same time.

What I need:
(from proponents)
- A list of issue sunrise wants to address (each point 2 lines at most)
- How it will be implemented
(from critics)
- What is wrong with the model (each point 2 lines at least, 4 at most)
- What you'd do as alternative as the criticized point ( 2 lines again)

That is just an experiment to see if we can have a thread producing a
result w/out too much discussion overhead.

who is going to play with me this game? =)

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Luca Barbato]

Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Sorry to disappoint you :-)

There are times for action and times for meditation, mix them correctly...

Also remember that rarely we need to take quick action or the world will
fall, "think twice, do it once" is a good way to avoid problems.

sunrise has lots of potential BUT some details must be investigated.
Ciaran wrote that the project should fix the issues raised, not change
name and place.

Probably getting it right on the first stance spending just a bit more
of time in order to get it running better would take less than discuss
to put it on hold, discuss on how unfair the people requesting it were,
discuss about how to keep it alive and such.

Sounds that out of world as reasoning?

that said, genstef do you mind starting from scratch describing the idea
and the implementation details (taking in account point raised)?

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Patrick Lauer]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 21:38 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:14:12 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > | Just to take this to a humorous extreme - 
> > | would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations?
> > 
> > That's not a humourous extreme at all. That would be a good start. Now,
> > follow it up with a promise that something similar won't come along
> > under a different name and make the same mistakes.
Ah well, Ciaran doing his nice troll impression again. How I missed that ...

> Ciaran: I think you're forgetting that Patrick's normal line of thinking
> is "act first, ask questions later" :)
Nah, I just don't want to wait 18 months for anonCVS, took me ~6h to get it 
working on my box.
Genstef was a bit optimistic in starting the sunrise overlay without
asking first, but I guess those people he would have asked might not
have seen a problem with it.

> Patrick: I think you're missing the point of why your project 
It's not my project. It's just one of the projects I like and which I
support where I can.
Technically I'm not even _part_ of this project, just a random
lurker ...
> was
> suspended in the first place. You're taking every comment that's been
> made against it as a personal attack and have been ignorant in *all* the
> technical details. 
Well ... if the technical details are "it will cause the end of the
world" it's hard to evaluate them to more than "random noise that can be
ignored". I really don't see how such an overlay would cause more
problems than providing the ebuilds unsorted, untested and without any
QA checks in bugzilla (which is official hardware, eh?). If you had
looked at sunrise recently you'd have noticed that those that work on it
try to do their best and reach a quite high quality standard. So you get
fixed, quality checked ebuilds, dev candidates and happy users.

> If you would open your eyes and mind a little you'll
> see that there are better ways to making your project work better. 
I could say the same to you - there's always room for improvement. 

> I
> don't think continuing it on unofficial hardware without fixing the
> details is the best idea. 
That's the only way to not have it die due to ressource starvation. Get
the people to not work on it for 3 months and noone will remember that
it even existed (which might be the goal of some)

> You're just digging your hole deeper and not
> fixing the issues we had in the first place. Please reconsider what
> you're doing.

I think the strong reactions from people like jakub (which now force 
the java overlay to do a stupid move just because otherwise they get
problems with bugs!?) show that we have a strong disagreement here
with one side responding to every demand and the other side just making
more demands. But eh, I'm not even part of Sunrise, so I probably
shouldn't even care.
 
> > | Now I'll just disappear for the weekend, don't flame too much in my
> > | absence ... 
> > That would also be a good start.
> Indeed.
Sorry to disappoint you :-)
-- 
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move


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