[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Natanael Copa wrote: What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer? Lets say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When there is a bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an updated ebuild/patch whatever. This person has no commit access. That makes a lot of sense, to me at least. Then a committer, a gentoo-dev (someone with little more experience), just take a quick look at it and commit it. Which would be similar to a proxy-dev, I guess, but if you're drawing people into helping maintain ebuilds that could only be a good thing. It'd be easier to run as well. (Maybe some scripts to check eg rm -fR / stuff.) This way fewer dev with commit access is needed, and more people from community are able to offload the dev's. This would also make the threshold lower for people to become a maintainer. FWIW I think it's a good idea. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 04:09 +, Duncan wrote: Two and potentially far worse, you have the demotivation problem. Picking on a rather active dev as a prime example, Flameeyes' Gentoo/alt-freebsd is certainly a minority arch, one that he spends a decent amount of time on that could arguably be spent on more mainline projects. Yet he remains very active in other areas as well, and simply telling him to packup his Gentoo/fbsd project as it's not wanted would be incredibly demotivating, and could eventually cause us to lose him and all the stuff he does for the /rest/ of the tree (a quite a lot, from where I sit as a user, and I'm very likely missing the largest share of it). That's not even counting how his work on Gentoo/FBSD has improved the quality of the tree for everyone, including those like me who have no direct interest in FBSD at all. Flameeyes isn't the only one. If you shut down all the minority archs and projects, you demotivate some of our best and brightest, and will very likely eventually lose them. $ cat commits.txt kloeri top 10 is: agriffis, vapier, flameeyes, eradicator, mcummings, mrbones, gustavoz, corsair, kloeri and wolf31o2 (in that order) Let's see... Aron works on alpha and ia64. Mike works on arm, hppa, s390, sh. Diego works on x86-fbsd. Gustavo works on sparc. Bryan works on alpha. I work on alpha. All of these are architectures/alt project that people are talking about dropping, yet the most productive people for Gentoo also happen to work on these and still manage to improve the core of Gentoo daily. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Tach Thomas, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Thomas Cort schrieb: Every developer should have access to at least 1 Gentoo system. They should also be able to determine if something is stable or not. It would cut down on the number of keyword/stable bugs if developers did a lot of their own keywording. As others already told: Most devs run ~arch and are surprised when arch testers spot problems on an entire stable system with a package going to be stabled. I see that a lot when testing for x86, most of the time minor issues sometimes graver things. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Tach Ioannis, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Ioannis Aslanidis schrieb: - Make every dev a member of at least 1 arch team That's a sound idea, that way some herds (see KDE) won't have to be searching for testers in every arch because _strangely_ one of the most daily used desktop environments doesn't have many users among the testers. That is a problem of the herd actually. They should look out for a person (be it dev or recruit) who is willing to join an arch team for KDE and do the work. Or place an active user as arch tester in the arch projects, which is very simple. Testers are needed and I try to support KDE even when using Gnome. To bring Gentoo forward, but you have seen the konqburn problems, so just having someone to keyword without proper testing does not help anyone. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote: Most devs run ~arch Says who? Did you pull that fact out of a hat, or something? Do you have any hard numbers to back that statement? Let's have an informal poll some time: I know I don't run ~arch, and there are many more devs who also run primarily stable systems. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFFJRndrsJQqN81j74RApEAAJ0TYaDiye0YWgX7XgoWEllw0sW5bwCTBZnn QupVOdDJr1bRcOGj4vATvw== =L0gr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Tach Josh, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Josh Saddler schrieb: Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote: Most devs run ~arch Says who? Did you pull that fact out of a hat, or something? Do you have any hard numbers to back that statement? A lot of devs run ~arch is more accurate. Or at least their package.keywords is very big. Let's have an informal poll some time: I know I don't run ~arch, and there are many more devs who also run primarily stable systems. During testing I often hear I don't run stable, so I need someone to test ebuild X for verification my bug fix worked V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Bryan Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:53:52 +: On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:36:37AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: I really want to see another checking of the CVS logs (without names, of course) to see just how much work how many developers do. I'd be interested to know if it really is a very few doing most of the work. I would venture to say that it is, and CIA stats seem to agree. I've just blogged about this including a fancy graph of commit activity versus devs. See http://kloeri.livejournal.com for the glory details or wait for it to show up on http://planet.gentoo.org. Good example of the currently popular long tail concept. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Thomas Cort [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0400: My view is that currently we cannot offer the same level of support for the minority arches as the majority arches because we don't have enough people involved. I think that spreading the developers too thin leads to conflict and burnout. Look at NetBSD and debian. They are trying to be everything for everyone. How is that working for them, how is it working for us? I think we should be more focused, but that's just my opinion. There are two separate problems with simply removing them, however. One, it has already been mentioned that the minority archs don't tend to be the bottleneck, so removing them isn't likely to help. In addition, the minority archs don't bother anyone not on them, except for maintainers looking to dump old versions, and that could arguably be better and more directly addressed with a policy of time-limitting the holdup effect -- if there has been no updates on a keyword bug in (say) 90 days, dropping the last arch or ~arch keyworded version is allowed. As it's related, it should be pointed out that simply forcing every dev onto at least one arch team isn't going to help much either -- as long as Gentoo is staffed by volunteers, you aren't going to be able to force them to do anything substancial on a team they aren't voluntarily on anyway, and all the inactive arch-team devs will only hide the problem. Additionally, that was the de facto situation with x86 previously, and it simply didn't work. Two and potentially far worse, you have the demotivation problem. Picking on a rather active dev as a prime example, Flameeyes' Gentoo/alt-freebsd is certainly a minority arch, one that he spends a decent amount of time on that could arguably be spent on more mainline projects. Yet he remains very active in other areas as well, and simply telling him to packup his Gentoo/fbsd project as it's not wanted would be incredibly demotivating, and could eventually cause us to lose him and all the stuff he does for the /rest/ of the tree (a quite a lot, from where I sit as a user, and I'm very likely missing the largest share of it). That's not even counting how his work on Gentoo/FBSD has improved the quality of the tree for everyone, including those like me who have no direct interest in FBSD at all. Flameeyes isn't the only one. If you shut down all the minority archs and projects, you demotivate some of our best and brightest, and will very likely eventually lose them. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
