Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS
On 2014.01.10 16:48, Igor wrote: Hello All, Thank you for all our feedback! [snip] -- Best regards, Igor mailto:lanthrus...@gmail.com Igor, You don't need anyones permission to start an OSS project. Just do it. If its useful, it will get used. Here, you will be met with almost total apathy because the reality is that most subscribers to this list won't respond until you have a working demo that they can play with. quote First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Mahatma Gandhi /quote Good luck. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees pgpE_PYpv0WRt.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS
Hello All, Thank you for all our feedback! It's very good that we have all many different views on the same subject. The nature designed us in a way that some part of us is to survive in almost any situation. If everyone thought the same they would make the same decisions and the probability of survival would decrease. So it's all very natural and I didn't expect it going easy. In project like that I can't rush to programming it without everyone's approval. This part of the project should have been implemented with the first portage version by it's creator. But as I'm not this person I'll need the expertise of the whole community. Let's agree on following - I'll design the system in details on paper. When it's ready (~ 1.5 months) I'll get back here and share the details. Then we all review it again everyone could contribute it's own view and part and help to avoid some design problems if there are. And then when the final version is ready and there is support and understanding of everyone and everyone says YES and sees that system could be helpful - I'll get in running in ~ 1.5 years alone or if I find some help - faster. I would anyway need this design to effectively program the soft. It's the first step, no matter if there is the second. Do we have an agreement on this one from everyone of the list? Please vote. -- Best regards, Igor mailto:lanthrus...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:48:30PM +0400, Igor wrote: Do we have an agreement on this one from everyone of the list? Agreement on what, precisely...? In open source, better implementations usually gain more mindshare. If you think you can write one (and the project is interesting to you) go forth and produce code! ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS
Igor wrote: Let's agree on following - I'll design the system in details on paper. When it's ready (~ 1.5 months) I'll get back here and share the details. You might be surprised how little people care about good design. They choose kindof-working implementation every time. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/01/14 11:48 AM, Igor wrote: Hello All, Thank you for all our feedback! It's very good that we have all many different views on the same subject. The nature designed us in a way that some part of us is to survive in almost any situation. If everyone thought the same they would make the same decisions and the probability of survival would decrease. So it's all very natural and I didn't expect it going easy. In project like that I can't rush to programming it without everyone's approval. This part of the project should have been implemented with the first portage version by it's creator. But as I'm not this person I'll need the expertise of the whole community. Let's agree on following - I'll design the system in details on paper. When it's ready (~ 1.5 months) I'll get back here and share the details. Then we all review it again everyone could contribute it's own view and part and help to avoid some design problems if there are. And then when the final version is ready and there is support and understanding of everyone and everyone says YES and sees that system could be helpful - I'll get in running in ~ 1.5 years alone or if I find some help - faster. I would anyway need this design to effectively program the soft. It's the first step, no matter if there is the second. Do we have an agreement on this one from everyone of the list? Please vote. I think it's great you are looking for (developer) community feedback, but it probably should be made clear that unless this project is going to go through official channels (ie, GLEP), it will be an independent project. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but it sounds like there are some assumptions that the design or implementation will just automatically be integrated. At this point, it doesn't sound like this project would be anywhere near ready to go through official channels, so your best bet would probably be to continue working on it as an independent project. And as such, agreement from everyone really has no meaning or value in this context. Good luck! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlLQKtIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCREgD+PUTaIF56RdLjFt64Xx8HraZJ qxHdYKfhY4eGlrVcYssA/jsbCruhMgwvMdoJVqKKWuTlzpkVUCjodYtWU0RH/mxw =gY62 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v2
Hello All, As there are questions at to what we vote. -- Thank you for all our feedback! In project like that I can't rush to programming it without everyone's approval. This part of the project should have been implemented with the first portage version by it's creator. But as I'm not this person I'll need the expertise of the whole community. Let's agree on following - I'll design the system in details on paper but no code will be produced at this stage. When it's ready (~ 1.5 months) I'll get back here and share the design sketches with you. Then we all review it again everyone could contribute it's own view and part and help to avoid some design problems if there are. I need an agreement on this stage from the list. If you consider PortageQOS is not necessary please vote NO. If you consider PortageQOS might have a chance and it depends on implementation say YES. Please vote. If NO there is no need to spend time even on sketches. If YES - there will be a system design ready and we could at least imagine how it might work as a whole and benefits it might bring. PS No way PortageQOS will work without uniform agreement. That thing was missing from portage design from the start and now with the legacy it's either everyone is willing to give it a try or none. I don't want to push somebody to something he doesn't see purpose for. There are people here who spent lots of time on the project and it might be left as is if they don't want any change. -- Best regards, Igor mailto:lanthrus...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v2
Am Freitag 10 Januar 2014, 21:18:58 schrieb Igor: Hello All, As there are questions at to what we vote. -- Realistically most people haven't even read your mails (too much bla). -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer kde, council
[gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v3
Hello All, As there are more questions rose. See you can't just think of everything, what you need is an ability to improve fast :-) -- Thank you for all our feedback! In project like that I can't rush to programming it without everyone's approval. This part of the project should have been implemented with the first portage version by it's creator. But as I'm not this person I'll need the expertise of the whole community. Let's agree on following - I'll design the system in details on paper but no code will be produced at this stage. When it's ready (~ 1.5 months) I'll get back here and share the design sketches with you. Then we all review it again everyone could contribute it's own view and part and help to avoid some design problems if there are. I need an agreement on this stage from the list. If you consider PortageQOS is not necessary please vote NO. If you consider PortageQOS might have a chance and it depends on implementation say YES. Please vote. If NO there is no need to spend time even on sketches. If YES - there will be a system design ready and we could at least imagine how it might work as a whole and benefits it might bring. -- BY VOTING WE MAKE NO ASSUMPTION that the PROJECT is going to be INTEGRATED in GENTOO without further approval. At this stage the design will serve only as a demonstration that such system could actually be implemented and used for benefits of GENTOO project. If community finds the design worth trying we'll push it for approval and then it will be implemented. -- PS No way PortageQOS will work without uniform agreement. That thing was missing from portage design from the start and now with the legacy it's either everyone is willing to give it a try or none. I don't want to push somebody to something he doesn't see purpose for. There are people here who spent lots of time on the project and it might be left as is if they don't want any change. -- Best regards, Igor mailto:lanthrus...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v2
Hello Andreas, Friday, January 10, 2014, 9:20:17 PM, you wrote: As there are questions at to what we vote. -- Realistically most people haven't even read your mails (too much bla). Please read the following and vote. What PortageQOS will be able to accumulate: * Knowledge of the number of Gentoo distros installed world wide - knowing the trend how many users choose Gentoo and where Gentoo is really going down|up|stands still. You can then try different features and see how a feature is met - if the number of systems increase then this feature is probably useful. It's a strategical job, somebody at the very top of the project should analyze databases and make conclusions. * Knowledge of the ebuild popularity - what ebuilds are popular and what are not - what ebuild to give an extra focus and what ebuild could wait * Knowledge of ebuild quality. If some ebuilds fail on many systems - something is wrong and ebuild and may be portage need fixing. It's especially useful to make sure that all ebuilds have correct dependencies, missing dependencies, etc. * A formal esteem of portage quality PortageQ = (the number of successful ebuilds/the number of all ebuild attempts) Portage speed efficiency: Average time before build starts (or download starts) How many times portage fails itself. * Immediate problem detection. If the number of PortageQ went down last day - there is some problem. (then you go to ebuild stats and see what is failing) * Reducing load on bugtracker folks - the build problems will be detected automatically and solved according to their importance. There will be no need to supply bug tracker with ebuild logs and emerge --info if somebody wants to report a problem. * Team efficiency esteem. The stats will tell what ebuilds are failing most often. * Team automated info. When failure rate of a certain ebuild increase the maintainer is automatically informed and he can login in web-interface and see details how exactly ebuild failed. The same for the portage itself. Next day a maintainer could push a new ebuild in the portage and the problem might be solved. It's not possible not to make mistakes. But it's possible to react on their consequences fast. * Knowledge what kernels are used by Gentoo users, how often they update their systems, what flags are used 2nd turn goals: * to integrate forums.gentoo.org and bug tracker. People are offering great workarounds and solutions. But they're not known to the majority of Gentoo users. If a e-build fails - may be there is already a solution - and we can offer the solutions automatically from portage. Like: There might be some work-arounds on this problem: [Gentoo Forum - qt-core ebuild fails - SOLVED] htpp://forums.gentoo.org/. There is a known bug on this ebuild: [Gentoo Bug - qt-core ebuild fails] htpp://forums.gentoo.org/. * to make Bug Tracker almost unmanned. We can use gathered infromation on failed e-builds to create bugs in Bug Tracker automatically and automatically set priorities according to the severity. The severity could be assigned automatically from package popularity and failure rate stats. These are the bricks that will be added in the initial design. -- Best regards, Igormailto:lanthrus...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v3
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:26:47 +0400 Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com wrote: In project like that I can't rush to programming it without everyone's approval. You don't need anyone's approval to do anything. Just go for it. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v2
Hello Andreas, Friday, January 10, 2014, 9:20:17 PM, you wrote: Realistically most people haven't even read your mails (too much bla). And one more goal - without PortageQOS you're forever stuck with the legacy portage design. If the team ever decides to change Portage you'll need feedback on how the new portage works to patch it quickly in case there are troubles. It's too risky to touch portage right now. Everyone understands that this is a kamikaze job. -- Best regards, Igormailto:lanthrus...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v2
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:46:18 +0400 Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com wrote: And one more goal - without PortageQOS you're forever stuck with the legacy portage design. If the team ever decides to change Portage you'll need feedback on how the new portage works to patch it quickly in case there are troubles. It's too risky to touch portage right now. Everyone understands that this is a kamikaze job. Uh, no. We already know lots of things that are wrong with the Portage design. We also know how to fix those things. Neither of those is the sticking point. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v3
Dnia 2014-01-10, o godz. 21:26:47 Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com napisał(a): As there are more questions rose. See you can't just think of everything, what you need is an ability to improve fast :-) A starting note: You've started *four* threads on the same subject *today* already. As a result, the whole discussion is shattered all over the place and if someone really wants to know all the details, he has to lose *a lot of time* reading all the individual threads and trying to compare and assemble. Please don't do that. Just start a single thread, and try to keep that discussion on subject. In project like that I can't rush to programming it without everyone's approval. This part of the project should have been implemented with the first portage version by it's creator. But as I'm not this person I'll need the expertise of the whole community. I don't know what kind of approval do you expect. I don't think Gentoo ever was much about 'officially approved', and I doubt we can give you any meaningful answer without prior testing. If you think it will be beneficial, start working on it. Once you get it working and we can see how it works, we can consider making it official. However, I'm afraid many of Gentoo users will not be interested in participating, or only interested in partial participation. What you're suggesting implies sending a lot of potentially private information. Many of our users will be concerned by that. I can't imagine it being any other way than opt-in. Then, many of our users will simply not care. As someone in the thread already noted, many of our users don't care about linuxcounter. Do you think they will actually care about your project? Not that I'm against it. I'm just trying to be realistic here. To convince Gentoo users, you have to really convince them that their privacy will be respected and they will be able to make most of it having to submit the least amount of data. This also implies that the output has to be really useful. But that's an entirely different topic that can't be answered without more thorough thinking. Let's agree on following - I'll design the system in details on paper but no code will be produced at this stage. When it's ready (~ 1.5 months) I'll get back here and share the design sketches with you. To be honest, I think ~1.5 month of paperwork sounds like serious overcomplexity. Please also remember that we're very limited on time, and work of ~1.5 month sounds like something we won't be able to read. Please try to think in smaller parts. Small, useful tools that could be integrated in the future to provide a better experience. Also, please try to look for other Gentoo projects that worked on similar topics, gentoostats for example. You may make use of some of the past experiences. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
