Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 09:41 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important, not the wording. This wording vs. intentions makes this whole thing really ridiculous. It makes you look like being nitpicking, even if you aren't. This is pretty much my feelings exactly on many of our policies. We shouldn't *have* to document every single thing that someone can possibly do wrong. We should be able to have a group that can make decisions based on the intent of the original policy. It would also make it quite a bit easier to keep up with the policies if we aren't having to constantly go back and re-read them for all of the changes. -- 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] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
James Potts wrote: 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. If you give people an inch, they'll take a mile. What's there to take? Freedom to work on stuff that they like to work on? 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. Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important, not the wording. This wording vs. intentions makes this whole thing really ridiculous. It makes you look like being nitpicking, even if you aren't. -- 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
Simon Stelling wrote: Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important, not the wording. That's one reason I would like to greatly simplify the laws around here -- less opportunity to argue that the wording doesn't explicitly prohibit something that's obviously wrong and/or stupid. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
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
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
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
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: http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
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
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 22:18 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 06:50 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote: OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs somewhere else from bugzilla. The gentoo-java developers have been working their tails off for over a year to do a massive migration (far broader reaching than the average GCC major version upgrade). That you would turn around and tell them to begone from Gentoo bugzilla with this work is really a bit off colour. No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is stupid, unfair and stupid. They deserve every possible accolade we can give them for their dedication to the cause, and every bit of support we can muster to help them see this project through to completion. I agree with you there. While I'd prefer to get rid of Java I don't let that influence my behaviour towards the project (or I'd have kicked them off my server a long time ago!) I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon. Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack on the persons and not on the technical structure. wkr, Patrick -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
Patrick Lauer wrote: No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is stupid, unfair and stupid. Wow, you are incredibly good at dismissing the actual argument that many folks have raised against sunrise, and instead inserting the waaahh!!! they aren't treating us the same!!! argument. In fact, there is no reason to be treated the same in this case. The council decided that sunrise was to be suspended, which in my mind constitutes a total scorched earth policy with respect to the use of any sort of Gentoo infra in any way. The council did not decide that the java overlay was to be suspended, ergo the java overlay can use Gentoo infra as a resource. I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon. Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack on the persons and not on the technical structure. Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches a point that you have nothing meaningful to say. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
Stephen P. Becker wrote: Patrick Lauer wrote: No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is stupid, unfair and stupid. Wow, you are incredibly good at dismissing the actual argument that many folks have raised against sunrise, and instead inserting the waaahh!!! they aren't treating us the same!!! argument. In fact, there is no reason to be treated the same in this case. The council decided that sunrise was to be suspended, which in my mind constitutes a total scorched earth policy with respect to the use of any sort of Gentoo infra in any way. The council did not decide that the java overlay was to be suspended, ergo the java overlay can use Gentoo infra as a resource. Frankly said, neither council nor devrel have any say in suspending projects hosted outside of gentoo, be it sunrise, gentopia, java-migration, java-experimental, BMG, or whatever else. You just can't dictate unpaid people what are they going to do in their free time (though some people would probably like to...) - so, please don't move this debate off-topic. I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon. Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack on the persons and not on the technical structure. Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches a point that you have nothing meaningful to say. So... sunrise has been suspended, moved to it's own domain, moved to non-gentoo hardware - and some people still are not satisfied and need to find something to annoy the bunch of people working on it. And, as there's not much left, they take something really childish and ridiculous, such as bugzilla keywords and status whiteboard, and run to devrel to ask for an urgent decision? What's this, if not a personal thing? -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=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] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
Patrick Lauer wrote: No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is stupid, unfair and stupid. Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an 'unofficial overlay'. I take it that an official overlay would be one that's hosted on overlays.g.o? If that's the case, our overlays have been around for at least a year (that's when I started using it as a user), and probably longer than that... which was before overlays.gentoo.org was even around. Additionally, the overlays are managed by the our team, and have been an integral part of our project, having been referenced for some time from our 'official' IRC channel and our project page. In my mind, this effectively make the overlays our 'official overlays'. I agree with you there. While I'd prefer to get rid of Java I don't let that influence my behaviour towards the project (or I'd have kicked them off my server a long time ago!) I'm sure you'll be happy to know we'll be moving to overlays.gentoo.org as soon as reasonably possible. Note: this was already planned, and it isn't me trying to be grumpy about the direction this discussion seems to be going. We would have moved sooner, but mostly we've been busy working on the migration stuff, so likely won't happen until we've moved that into the tree. - Josh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: Frankly said, neither council nor devrel have any say in suspending projects hosted outside of gentoo, be it sunrise, gentopia, java-migration, java-experimental, BMG, or whatever else. You just can't dictate unpaid people what are they going to do in their free time (though some people would probably like to...) - so, please don't move this debate off-topic. They didn't suspend the project working outside Gentoo. They suspended it working *inside* Gentoo, which is what prompted the move in the first place. I'm not really sure where you think that this makes it off-topic. Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches a point that you have nothing meaningful to say. So... sunrise has been suspended, moved to it's own domain, moved to non-gentoo hardware - and some people still are not satisfied and need to find something to annoy the bunch of people working on it. And, as there's not much left, they take something really childish and ridiculous, such as bugzilla keywords and status whiteboard, and run to devrel to ask for an urgent decision? What's this, if not a personal thing? Perhaps it is a few developers trying to actually enforce the council's decision and make sure that the 100% unofficial project doesn't *look* official. Using InOverlay as if Sunrise is some sort of Gentoo official overlay is a prime example of this. Let's look at it this way. If someone from Sunrise were to say this ebuild is available in our overlay in a comment, nobody would really have a problem. Having someone with an @gentoo.org address setting InOverlay makes it look like Gentoo is endorsing the overlay. Remember that when you use your @gentoo.org address, you're speaking for Gentoo in the user's eyes. Using InOverlay would be the same as someone from BMG (that happened to be a developer) doing it because it is in the BMG overlay. It's simply not accurate. Now, the java team is an official Gentoo project, unlike Sunrise. I don't see how a non-Gentoo project and an official Gentoo project are similar in this regard, at all, but you're welcome to keep arguing it that way. ;] Of course, I haven't seen any of the bugs in question to see exactly what it is that they were doing, I'm just making an observation based on what I've been seeing in this thread. Really, people... just because someone has a problem with your *IDEA* doesn't make it an attack on *YOU*. It just means they don't like your idea. Plain and simple... -- 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] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote: Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an 'unofficial overlay'. No, this is about a project that was supposed to be suspended until its details have been hashed out. ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpTMHLTlUUKB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: Perhaps it is a few developers trying to actually enforce the council's decision and make sure that the 100% unofficial project doesn't *look* official. Using InOverlay as if Sunrise is some sort of Gentoo official overlay is a prime example of this. Let's look at it this way. If someone from Sunrise were to say this ebuild is available in our overlay in a comment, nobody would really have a problem. Having someone with an @gentoo.org address setting InOverlay makes it look like Gentoo is endorsing the overlay. Remember that when you use your @gentoo.org address, you're speaking for Gentoo in the user's eyes. Using InOverlay would be the same as someone from BMG (that happened to be a developer) doing it because it is in the BMG overlay. It's simply not accurate. It's exactly as accurate as the keyword description [1] is, i.e.: snip A case where someone is working on this maintained-needed ebuild in an overlay to test their fixes before including it in an ebuild in the tree. /snip So, be it BMG or sunrise or whatever else, it's an appropriate use of that keyword, and there's nothing there suggesting that the overlay is an official one. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=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] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work
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. As for java being a project and sunrise not being a project, if it was the intention of devrel to stop unofficial *projects* from using bugzilla, then that's how they should've worded their ruling. --Arek P.S. I do beleive that devrel may have been a little out of line in doing this. People need to think about the consequences of making (potentially far-reaching) rulings like the one made in this case. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
