Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
On 02-04-2008 21:21:25 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: > Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain > packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the > maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs? Devs who keep claiming > packages only to allow them to bitrot can be booted. On other projects I sometimes see a remark such as: "Maintainer time-out, committing the fix as in bug #bla" Maybe that is a bit less intrusive as dropping the maintainer entirely. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Hi, "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're > forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and > that we have many different roles. And just remember Diego's post, where he by accident accused a developer being a slacker [1], while that person was mostly working on the overlay. V-Li [1] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/03/06/amending-my-soc-post> -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode http://www.faulhammer.org/> signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Petteri Räty wrote: Mike Auty kirjoitti: Petteri Räty wrote: Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse. I agree with the above point. Also, as I recall, both Pettery (betelgeuse) and Denis (calchan) have stated before that we no longer have any queue of people waiting on recruiters to join Gentoo. I'm not seeing an avalanche of new blood entering the distro, so I'm wondering where we want to go. If we keep going the route of the last months, I wonder how long it will take until we get under 150 devs. I don't think this will benefit anyone. Furthermore, the trend in the last months was in large part the result of finally retiring people that had been slacking for a long time. This proposal could (would?) lead to sending away people that still do work, albeit at a slower pace or on bursts. What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion? I can think og keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to maintain the devs. Are there others I've missed? If they're worth the cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests and getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise probably not... Mike 5:) [1] http://dberkholz.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/redux-gentoos-top-3-issues/ If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues either. This means that you should have devaway on. As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that we have many different roles. Although you're talking about ebuild devs only - so doc devs, infra and forums staff are exempt from this rule - you're assuming (asking?) that all people with access to gentoo-x86 are package maintainers and do a few, regular commits to the tree. As others have said, that assumes people keep more than a few ebuilds and that those packages require constant attention. Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA members? Are they also obliged to do a weekly commit to keep their "privileges"? Finally, I thought the whole point of removing access to infra boxes (which is the end result of retiring a dev), was a concern with security and not a way to get rid of people - with the exception of administrative action by devrel. We've been having a few discussions about the future of Gentoo for some time and people have shown different goals and views on its future and on how to get there. One of the views seems to be that we need (only need?) an "elite" of super-devs that do daily (hourly?) commits. I have nothing against people that can give so much to this project, but I don't think it's reasonable, desirable or healthy to expect everyone to be able to that level of commitment. Also, wasn't this distro at one point all about community? I don't think raising the commitement level helps to involve people and as William (wltjr) pointed out shouldn't we be more concerned with quality than with quantity? I understand and agree that ebuild devs should keep a minimum level of work to justify their access to the gentoo-x86 tree. I would also like to have a few devs that can do major commits (although commit sprees can have their own problems), but I think there's still a place in this distro for people that want to maintain a few packages, that want to do AT work, that care with the QA of the tree or that work on releases. These people shouldn't be sent away, just because they can't keep with weekly commits (not enough work or time?) or because they work in bursts. As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. Afterall, if gentoo-x86 was a git tree and or we had acls in the tree, I don't think we would be having or would need to have this argument. Regards, Petteri -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Jan Kundrát wrote: Petteri Räty wrote: If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues either. This means that you should have devaway on. That assumption is false. If there was a need to do weekly commits and the dev in question couldn't manage it, it would be wise to expect that he can't be relied upon with security fixes. However, there is no need to do periodic commits now, so the above theorem doesn't hold. :) Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs? Devs who keep claiming packages only to allow them to bitrot can be booted. However, unless a dev is actually a liability, does it make sense to get rid of them? Even a small positive contribution is still a positive contribution. If the concern is devs who become liabilities then why not make the policy to look for the liabilities themselves? -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 22:19 +0100, Mike Auty wrote: > Petteri Räty wrote: > > Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to > > raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. > > Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one > problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action > against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the > number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse. It's about quality not quantity maybe? > What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion? I can think og > keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to maintain > the devs. Are there others I've missed? If they're worth the > cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests and > getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise probably > not... Well I think in part is keeping up with changes within Gentoo. Since I joined we have change the syntax and semantics of Gentoo Java ebuilds allot. Lots of things wrt to ebuilds constantly change. So could be more of your game. If your not keeping u[, you run the greater chance of falling behind, etc. The other side of that, and maybe it's part of the above suggestion, is re-taking the quizzes. I have long thought, just like driving tests. That maybe every so often existing devs should re-take the quizzes. The quizzes do change at times. Much less if your skills are sharp, should only take a few minutes if that. ( Mostly thinking of myself when I think about re-taking quizzes ;) ) I take it as an all around approach to increased QA. Possible motivator for developer activity with some very reasonable minimum requirements. Surely could have side effects, but not a horrible idea -- William L. Thomson Jr. amd64/Java/Trustees Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-libs/swl
It will be removed at the end of the month. 03 Apr 2008; Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> package.mask: mask dev-libs/swl due to dead upstream and not working properly; bug #206163 -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgpNDyIfwz99Z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Mike Auty kirjoitti: Petteri Räty wrote: If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues either. I can see your point, I was more thinking about developers who have maybe one or two small packages that don't have many version bumps or bugs. They may be entirely able to respond to security issues, but may not have reason to make the weekly commit quota. I don't know the habits of developers well enough to know if this is a reasonable scenario? I was under the impression that if a dev couldn't respond quickly enough to a security issue, the security team could take steps (mask the package, try to fix it) to ensure the package doesn't pose a problem (as is presumably the case now with devs who forget to mark themselves as away). Depending on the actions you envisaged (sending a warning email, marking as away or retiring) this could create a lot of extra work for little benefit. If it was simply a warning email it might not be very pointful, but marking them as away then it sounds like it could be useful and automated... 5:) Mike 5:) Undertakers would still be processing the retirements. What I am talking about is changing how the list of potentially inactive people is created. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Petteri Räty wrote: If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues either. I can see your point, I was more thinking about developers who have maybe one or two small packages that don't have many version bumps or bugs. They may be entirely able to respond to security issues, but may not have reason to make the weekly commit quota. I don't know the habits of developers well enough to know if this is a reasonable scenario? I was under the impression that if a dev couldn't respond quickly enough to a security issue, the security team could take steps (mask the package, try to fix it) to ensure the package doesn't pose a problem (as is presumably the case now with devs who forget to mark themselves as away). Depending on the actions you envisaged (sending a warning email, marking as away or retiring) this could create a lot of extra work for little benefit. If it was simply a warning email it might not be very pointful, but marking them as away then it sounds like it could be useful and automated... 5:) Mike 5:) -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Petteri Räty wrote: If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues either. This means that you should have devaway on. That assumption is false. If there was a need to do weekly commits and the dev in question couldn't manage it, it would be wise to expect that he can't be relied upon with security fixes. However, there is no need to do periodic commits now, so the above theorem doesn't hold. :) Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues > either. This means that you should have devaway on. So if you don't maintain enough packages to commit on average once a week, you're not worth having? Also, you said average, did you mean mode, median or mean? Over what time period? -- Richard Brown -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Wulf C. Krueger kirjoitti: On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote: How does having the average time between commits be at most a week sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification? It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone. I don't have numbers yet, but I presume this is going to mark quite a few developers. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Mike Auty kirjoitti: Petteri Räty wrote: Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse. What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion? I can think og keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to maintain the devs. Are there others I've missed? If they're worth the cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests and getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise probably not... Mike 5:) [1] http://dberkholz.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/redux-gentoos-top-3-issues/ If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues either. This means that you should have devaway on. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Petteri Räty wrote: Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse. What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion? I can think og keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to maintain the devs. Are there others I've missed? If they're worth the cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests and getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise probably not... Mike 5:) [1] http://dberkholz.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/redux-gentoos-top-3-issues/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Wulf C. Krueger wrote: On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote: > How does having the average time between commits be at most a week > sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification? It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone. - !DSPAM:47f3f2be39031804284693! Yep its me! Seriously...we don't need to be paranoid people. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote: > How does having the average time between commits be at most a week > sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification? It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone. -- Best regards, Wulf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. Just committing monthly is not enough imho to require a developer status. How does having the average time between commits be at most a week sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification? Devaway would be there of course as usual. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] changes to staffing-needs page and project pages
Since a few weeks ago project pages can contain a new section to list open positions within the project that require fresh blood (thanks to neysx for implementing this). Historically those were only listed centrally http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/staffing-needs/index.xml, which had a number of problems (limited visibility, unclear responsibility) But as a central page also has advantages that page has been updated to collect the sections from project pages and list them all in one place (again thanks to neysx for the implementation). I hope that this new feature will help us to better communicate where users can help the project and improve our recruitment process. Marius PS: people with existing entries on the old page have been notified a few weeks ago with the offer to migrate their entries, and only when people replied have their entries been migrated. -- 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
