Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
I don't think this (the general idea) is a heretical thought, in fact it was around for quite some time. See #1523 for example, which actually came out of a similar thread back ?5? years ago. (There were no GLEPs back then, for those of you who will wan't to go "why this isn't it glepped?" :). There were no overlays, even no KEYWORDS back then either, so be carefull if you read it - it is quite outdated (half of what is discussed there is already implemented in fact) and uses old terminology.) But then I agree about many issues raised regarding the Sunrise project. The way it is pushed will not offload anything off the developers and is quite likely to do quite the contrary.. The main issue: to make it fly and really make something useable (supported by users, *not* taking devs out of the loop and *not* loading them any more) one (at least) ingridient is missing IMNSHO. That is: some ranking system - for the ebuilds *and* for the users. It was referenced as voting system in that bug, we also had gentoo-stats project (now like what, 4 years ago?) which was not quite the same but addressing similar and more immediate issue. This part of the process (the rankings), taken as an "entity in itself", is not that straightforward (meaning a significant tossing of the design ideas would be necessary) and the benefits are not that vital. I think these were the main reasons it did not take off as a standalone project (e.g. gentoo-stats was restarted a few times, but eventually died). While it is nice to have some idea of package usage (which was the main goal of gentoo-stats) or get some fuzzy feeling on "I (user) rated holier than thou because of my superior ebuilding skills" (voting process in that bug), these are clearly not enough to create something sustained. And I am not talking about ethics here (this is re: ratings for users - this was actually mentioned a few times, so I'll address it right now). A general rule - if something is perceived worthy it will be done, no matter how unethical. Even if we (the devs) would ban this, nothing stopped the users to create something similar on their own (who knows, based around BMG, forums or whatever). The fact that this did not happen IMHO illustrates pretty well that this is a no-fly thing on its own. On the other hand I think that just opening up the barrier and allowing users to easily bring stuff in is just the same no-fly-by-itself thingy. The reason: you have to provide some control over quality or you will get another BMG, and my understanding is (the Sunrise thread was pretty long, so I cannot be totally sure :)) that that was generally accepted. Now, we have two ways to add control: 1. Involve devs, directly or indirectly - this is what Sunrise is proposing and many devs strongly object. 2. Involve users and leave it on their side. There were a few words said about how users would take care of it all, but I did not get a clear idea of a workflow.. First on #1. Sunrise proponents basically say: "we will take care of it all, nobody needs to care". Many devs object: "as long as it has anything-gentoo in its name/affiliations we *will* feel the consequences and *will* have to care". (and now Sunrise poeple basically said that without gentoo in affiliatio it is pointless). To that I'll add that in any case, bacause of the scale, there is just no way Sunrise people themselves are going to be able to keep up. Even if their involvement is reduced to the very basic stuff. (This was implied or shortly noted in some replies, but I wanted to clearly restate it now..) But then, involving users without clear workflow and QC will just create another mess - "just another BMG" as some people called it. So, here we go, its number 2 and it requires some structure. The most fluid one I can think of is a rankings system. For the packages (based on reviews of the code, emerge success, usage testing. Can be a compound parameter or multidimentional. That bug has some details, but not much of those - needs serious redesign I'd say to bring it to present from the past..) and for the submitters/editors - based on the ratings of their submissions perhaps (the most straightforwards one), possibly on a few more factors. So, to summarise: 1. I do agree that in general that (ease of user-side care) is a good thing, however this requires (quite) a bit more work than just setting up an overlay.. 2. (at least) two things - the ease of submission/access to packages and QC/ratings are quite tied together and have to be designed/implemented at the same time. (And there is some empirical evidence to back this up - BMG and gentoo-stats for one) . George вівторок, 13. червень 2006 18:10, Grant Goodyear Ви написали: > Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that > we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of > just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
Jakub Moc wrote: > Getting tired of this thread, really. Talk about too much ado for > nothing. So, how about we stop wasting time, let people who are > interested to do something do it, and the rest of us can focus on more > important stuff than endless debates on mailing list and bothering > Gentoo Council - such as fixing current bugs and cleaning the dead cruft > in the tree, or fixing things not yet ported for modular X, or unported > for gcc-4.x, or whatever else? Damn liberal! [1] SCNR [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/docs/flame.html#doc_chap1_pre1 -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
Ned Ludd wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 18:26 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > >> I have a problem with it being an official project hosted on >> *.gentoo.org, as I fear most users will think "hey, it's official, >> it's hosted on *.gentoo.org - it can't be that bad". Judging from the >> few users who have posted to the previous threads on this subject, my >> fear seems to be reasonable. >> >> If the project was to be hosted on a non *.gentoo.org domain (I'll let >> infra comment on whether or not non *.gentoo.org domains can be hosted >> on infra hardware) my current issues with this project would be gone. > > Would moving it from overlays.g.o to overlays.dev.g.o, > overlays.experimental.dev.g.o help ? It could then be viewed > officially unofficial as the tinderboxing repository's I've > been working on. I like the idea, helps to differentiate a bit. Though - frankly said I don't really understand what's this paranoia about. You don't have control over users' systems. There are tons of overlays users are using daily [1] - but obviously according to some people the one like Sunrise must definitely be the worst overlay ever, which will just make users boxes massively explode in smoke, kill Gentoo, all its reputation and half of the near universe. The main reason being that it's been hosted on overlays.gentoo.org and hence it's obviously official and we must guarantee that it will be 130% working and won't bring a single bad byte on users' boxes, otherwise - whee kabm, the end of the world! [1] http://gentoo-wiki.com/TIP_Overlays > Personally I know I would like to have a place to park > pic, iconv, nls patches in testing, and embedded-kernels that are say > vital for some devices but for one reason or another should not be in > the official tree. Erm, better host it somewhere else, you'll save yourself trouble and it will be more effective. >> If the project proves to be healthy and not affect the reputation of >> Gentoo in a bad way, we could consider adopting it as an official >> project after a period of time. > > Or not? Shrug... The question is whether the maintainers will be interested in becoming an official project or if they'll just choose to save themselves the trouble. Getting tired of this thread, really. Talk about too much ado for nothing. So, how about we stop wasting time, let people who are interested to do something do it, and the rest of us can focus on more important stuff than endless debates on mailing list and bothering Gentoo Council - such as fixing current bugs and cleaning the dead cruft in the tree, or fixing things not yet ported for modular X, or unported for gcc-4.x, or whatever else? Mailing list threads that don't fix one screen resolution suck, you can expect another funding request from blubb any time soon, it seems. :P -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
> (...) Is it just that now we have a lot of > developers who are willing to allow users to break their boxes? Just tell me one thing, are you breaking your box everytime you use an overlay? -- Best Regards, Peper -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 11:10 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that > we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of > just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an > expectation that it would add to developer workloads. The former is > certainly a real problem, although signing (assuming a reasonable > web-of-trust) could mitigate that some (at least we'd know who to > blame). The latter, however, is conjecture, and the only good way to > verify it would be to actually try it and see what happens. Oh, and > there's also a very real fear that if things go horribly wrong, that > Gentoo's reputation would suffer quite badly. Perhaps I'm naive, but I > tend to think that if we were to advertise project sunrise as > experimental, temporary, use-at-your-own-risk, and > might-break-your-system, and even put it on hardware without a > gentoo.org address and add a portage hook that warns whenever the > project sunrise overlay is used, then our reputation isn't really likely > to suffer even if it's a complete disaster. > > So, Chris, what have I failed to address that would make this a really > bad idea? Honestly, I'm not feeling the urge to retype everything I put into my last email again, just because someone else asked it. This has come up time and time again, and every time it gets shot down for lots of reasons. Why is it suddenly a good idea now, when it has always been a bad idea before? Is it just that now we have a lot of developers who are willing to allow users to break their boxes? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
> Would moving it from overlays.g.o to overlays.dev.g.o, > overlays.experimental.dev.g.o help ? It could then be viewed > officially unofficial as the tinderboxing repository's I've > been working on. I think it won't make a big difference. It's stated clearly that the sunrise overlay is experimental and unsupported. If some user is really that blind he won't read the link either. And overlays.experimental.dev.gentoo.org domain is a bit unfriendly, don't you think so? Next step would be sunrise.the.experimental.and.unsupported.overlay.hosted.on.dev.overlays.gentoo.org > Personally I know I would like to have a place to park > pic, iconv, nls patches in testing, and embedded-kernels that are say > vital for some devices but for one reason or another should not be in > the official tree. Sunrise would be a good place i think ;] -- Best Regards, Peper -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:15:12PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > Would moving it from overlays.g.o to overlays.dev.g.o, > overlays.experimental.dev.g.o help ? It could then be viewed > officially unofficial as the tinderboxing repository's I've > been working on. It wouldn't be the ideal solution to me. > Or not? That's an option as well. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpbfQNDxLv1t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 18:26 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > I have a problem with it being an official project hosted on > *.gentoo.org, as I fear most users will think "hey, it's official, > it's hosted on *.gentoo.org - it can't be that bad". Judging from the > few users who have posted to the previous threads on this subject, my > fear seems to be reasonable. > > If the project was to be hosted on a non *.gentoo.org domain (I'll let > infra comment on whether or not non *.gentoo.org domains can be hosted > on infra hardware) my current issues with this project would be gone. Would moving it from overlays.g.o to overlays.dev.g.o, overlays.experimental.dev.g.o help ? It could then be viewed officially unofficial as the tinderboxing repository's I've been working on. Personally I know I would like to have a place to park pic, iconv, nls patches in testing, and embedded-kernels that are say vital for some devices but for one reason or another should not be in the official tree. > If the project proves to be healthy and not affect the reputation of > Gentoo in a bad way, we could consider adopting it as an official > project after a period of time. Or not? > Sincerely, > Brix -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:06:56AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Do you also expect that once I'm able to move my overlay to > overlays.g.o, it will become this amazing beautiful thing that never has > any work-in-progress stuff in it that's incredibly broken? (I would love > if that were the case.) The same goes for any other personal or project > overlays there, as I doubt many users will distinguish between them. No, but I expect your overlay to mainly consist of ebuilds for software you use, software you have bothered to actually examine - perhaps even software you already maintain in-tree. I don't expect your personal overlay to be a dumping ground for random ebuilds which you personally have no interest in maintaining. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpJXi8S3tCKi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > As I've said all along - I do not have any problems with Project > Sunrise. I have a problem with it being an official project hosted on > *.gentoo.org, as I fear most users will think "hey, it's official, > it's hosted on *.gentoo.org - it can't be that bad". Judging from the > few users who have posted to the previous threads on this subject, my > fear seems to be reasonable. Do you also expect that once I'm able to move my overlay to overlays.g.o, it will become this amazing beautiful thing that never has any work-in-progress stuff in it that's incredibly broken? (I would love if that were the case.) The same goes for any other personal or project overlays there, as I doubt many users will distinguish between them. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:10:47AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that > we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of > just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an > expectation that it would add to developer workloads. The former is > certainly a real problem, although signing (assuming a reasonable > web-of-trust) could mitigate that some (at least we'd know who to > blame). The latter, however, is conjecture, and the only good way to > verify it would be to actually try it and see what happens. Oh, and > there's also a very real fear that if things go horribly wrong, that > Gentoo's reputation would suffer quite badly. Perhaps I'm naive, but I > tend to think that if we were to advertise project sunrise as > experimental, temporary, use-at-your-own-risk, and > might-break-your-system, and even put it on hardware without a > gentoo.org address and add a portage hook that warns whenever the > project sunrise overlay is used, then our reputation isn't really likely > to suffer even if it's a complete disaster. > > So, Chris, what have I failed to address that would make this a really > bad idea? As I've said all along - I do not have any problems with Project Sunrise. I have a problem with it being an official project hosted on *.gentoo.org, as I fear most users will think "hey, it's official, it's hosted on *.gentoo.org - it can't be that bad". Judging from the few users who have posted to the previous threads on this subject, my fear seems to be reasonable. If the project was to be hosted on a non *.gentoo.org domain (I'll let infra comment on whether or not non *.gentoo.org domains can be hosted on infra hardware) my current issues with this project would be gone. If the project proves to be healthy and not affect the reputation of Gentoo in a bad way, we could consider adopting it as an official project after a period of time. Sincerely, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpyQV6aukXgs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 11:10 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that > we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of > just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an > expectation that it would add to developer workloads. The former is > certainly a real problem, although signing (assuming a reasonable > web-of-trust) could mitigate that some (at least we'd know who to > blame). The latter, however, is conjecture, and the only good way to > verify it would be to actually try it and see what happens. Oh, and > there's also a very real fear that if things go horribly wrong, that > Gentoo's reputation would suffer quite badly. Perhaps I'm naive, but I > tend to think that if we were to advertise project sunrise as > experimental, temporary, use-at-your-own-risk, and > might-break-your-system, and even put it on hardware without a > gentoo.org address and add a portage hook that warns whenever the > project sunrise overlay is used, then our reputation isn't really likely > to suffer even if it's a complete disaster. > > So, Chris, what have I failed to address that would make this a really > bad idea? That this describes break-my-gentoo, that it is as old as Gentoo itself and that it only creates problems for the 'supported' tree : the unexplained bugs, the weird errors, the continuous suspicion devs need to have on reported errors. Keep that stuff separated, don't mingle it with Gentoo. - foser signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an expectation that it would add to developer workloads. The former is certainly a real problem, although signing (assuming a reasonable web-of-trust) could mitigate that some (at least we'd know who to blame). The latter, however, is conjecture, and the only good way to verify it would be to actually try it and see what happens. Oh, and there's also a very real fear that if things go horribly wrong, that Gentoo's reputation would suffer quite badly. Perhaps I'm naive, but I tend to think that if we were to advertise project sunrise as experimental, temporary, use-at-your-own-risk, and might-break-your-system, and even put it on hardware without a gentoo.org address and add a portage hook that warns whenever the project sunrise overlay is used, then our reputation isn't really likely to suffer even if it's a complete disaster. So, Chris, what have I failed to address that would make this a really bad idea? -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpYv7ECVebb2.pgp Description: PGP signature
