Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
On 07/12/2010 12:56 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: I remember very clearly as you and I were both council members at the time. My point is that this discussion does not need to even happen and the council shouldn't even remotely be involved here. I assumed the best way to change policy would be to ask council to rule on it. Of course we could just see if we can get a consensus fast without council. Let developers develop. So instead of making current rules better just screw them? Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: On 07/12/2010 12:56 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: I remember very clearly as you and I were both council members at the time. My point is that this discussion does not need to even happen and the council shouldn't even remotely be involved here. I assumed the best way to change policy would be to ask council to rule on it. Of course we could just see if we can get a consensus fast without council. There is no change of policy and there is no reason for the council to be involved. He can change the eclass how he needs and that's the end of the story. The council does not need to be involved at every potential crossroad. The council only needs to be involved when a potential technical issue arises. No technical issue, proceed ahead. No need for the council to road block. e.g. if its not in the rule book you can do it. This is vastly different then your interpretation of the council's mandiate, Petteri, which is if its not in the rule book go ask permission. Hence my point of saying let developers develop instead of telling them they need to ask permission and wait 4 weeks while it gets on an agenda list everytime they want to commit to the tree or blow their nose or boot up their computer. -- Doug Goldstein
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
On 07/11/2010 08:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works for everyone. When someone proposes this I'll let you know. What's under discussion is allowing removals to the public API of eclasses by following a documented process (that doesn't involve council approval). So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or am I leaving them in? If you decided to drop maintenance of MythTV in main tree, wouldn't it be a better service to users to try and find a new maintainer (who would possibly merge stuff from your overlay)? Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: On 07/11/2010 08:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works for everyone. When someone proposes this I'll let you know. What's under discussion is allowing removals to the public API of eclasses by following a documented process (that doesn't involve council approval). So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or am I leaving them in? If you decided to drop maintenance of MythTV in main tree, wouldn't it be a better service to users to try and find a new maintainer (who would possibly merge stuff from your overlay)? Regards, Petteri Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say oh we have to stop development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor. The council's purpose is to help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but instead to promote positive development. Someone along the years the council lost its way and has felt that it needs to stick its fingers into places that it really doesn't belong. Its really become like the upper management at a large company that slows its developers down, instead of helping make them more efficient. -- Doug Goldstein
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Doug. On 11-07-2010 16:03, Doug Goldstein wrote: On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: On 07/11/2010 08:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works for everyone. When someone proposes this I'll let you know. What's under discussion is allowing removals to the public API of eclasses by following a documented process (that doesn't involve council approval). So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or am I leaving them in? If you decided to drop maintenance of MythTV in main tree, wouldn't it be a better service to users to try and find a new maintainer (who would possibly merge stuff from your overlay)? Regards, Petteri Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say oh we have to stop development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor. The council's purpose is to help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but instead to promote positive development. There seems to be some misunderstanding going on as we (Gentoo) haven't approved (in prior councils terms or in the current one which hopes to have its first meeting in the coming week or the following) any rules about eclass changes having to be discussed or approved by the council. Someone along the years the council lost its way and has felt that it needs to stick its fingers into places that it really doesn't belong. Its really become like the upper management at a large company that slows its developers down, instead of helping make them more efficient. About the issue in discussion, Petteri was recalling that contrary to what anyone new to Gentoo might conclude from the current discussion, the issue of eclass deprecation has been subject to at least 2 separate discussions in the past 2 or 3 years and that in the last round there was a proposal for setting minimal deprecation time frames. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMOfNWAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPsuQP/ApDmnJ8hNybSBzSOack2HIu 0IpIPgRV43s6SGLQuZH8sh2Svuzxlx7nMEb5/i+NkFrqnBp0p843onQorN2iO0a4 95k6CE23GRIaJKaOuNduAhI6Okme6/dVAaDhHzXRCwke+Sbbeohn8gnvZyu/fb3/ M/YTCXsz9Iur6ucs3pGNbE5aakJMwM6Su/h6QB4FjA+J0D9K9oHLf6aC70CKyH+e Tw71UnGsb84lvd7kGsbRNn+RNEkRjvGQNA87y8Pau/q8YEmzH660zyg6tiMwLRnq B1DaHYisVI6v9WAV7pRj6uAHYe52raeAZvFg025JNyo25tRbLpL9x+65lRF+yVVk kc93rCMZsfgCsZoNWDK2QZWSrqYLTUHdbin66eNzxciqWBfoK3plBMp+CDg9iJb3 dSKBz2Ixsv5GWm6IcZM9wEzX34Wk+SJlj4ZPiD8iHOFT1kU4G3FmOcrI00ijXM/p dAPMfz82uWFlaRwOMrfMJzq2Uy8SvU+8s68D7LKFUQP2e0xPsbBi6WF9lDPXys80 x073GzXDq+MfyQYxn1VLRwXHAhJNKbyGvy0Unm8scKr3+HzTZY8+G4Uvt/OAfg+4 YLorgdiRsGm4ecr4Y2DCydMk6TumS/915lmtePmNDdZ+s2lVTGem2cKVc8EJI42z 91KjRH4dYEj968oOenST =G61A -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
On 07/11/2010 07:37 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say oh we have to stop development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor. The council's purpose is to help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but instead to promote positive development. Original rules (as they were when I joined 2005): You are only allowed to add to the public API of an eclass. Eclass removal addition: Since then council has approved the ability to fully remove eclasses: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090528-summary.txt Under discussion: Extend the rules to allow developers to remove functions from the API of an eclass. To me this seem exactly like: The council's purpose is to help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. About the issue in discussion, Petteri was recalling that contrary to what anyone new to Gentoo might conclude from the current discussion, the issue of eclass deprecation has been subject to at least 2 separate discussions in the past 2 or 3 years and that in the last round there was a proposal for setting minimal deprecation time frames. There's already an approved process for eclass removal (see link above). If we allow removal of functions I think there should a similar set of rules as for eclass and package removal. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 07:47:24PM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote: On 07/11/2010 07:37 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say oh we have to stop development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor. The council's purpose is to help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but instead to promote positive development. Original rules (as they were when I joined 2005): You are only allowed to add to the public API of an eclass. Eclass removal addition: Since then council has approved the ability to fully remove eclasses: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090528-summary.txt Under discussion: Extend the rules to allow developers to remove functions from the API of an eclass. To me this seem exactly like: The council's purpose is to help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. From my stance, I firmly believe the council doesn't really need to be involved here. This is QA's domain- specifically to decide tree policy. The only question here is essentially at what point do we stop caring about older portage versions. portage 2.1.4.4 went stable (carrying that support) 06/01/08. Frankly I'd argue the council's original decision while bound to eclasses, should've been bound to the 2.1.4.4 release- specifically you can't remove eclasses/functionality until 2 years after 2.1.4.4. So... I firmly view this as QA's domain (they set the rules for most other tree policies). Leave it to them to decide. I realize from the standpoint of following the rules, this will require the council to state yeah, we're backing out of this, it's now QA's domain, but this is my view on what should be done. ~harring pgp8TE4hNEvfF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Doug. On 11-07-2010 16:03, Doug Goldstein wrote: On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: On 07/11/2010 08:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works for everyone. When someone proposes this I'll let you know. What's under discussion is allowing removals to the public API of eclasses by following a documented process (that doesn't involve council approval). So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or am I leaving them in? If you decided to drop maintenance of MythTV in main tree, wouldn't it be a better service to users to try and find a new maintainer (who would possibly merge stuff from your overlay)? Regards, Petteri Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say oh we have to stop development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor. The council's purpose is to help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but instead to promote positive development. There seems to be some misunderstanding going on as we (Gentoo) haven't approved (in prior councils terms or in the current one which hopes to have its first meeting in the coming week or the following) any rules about eclass changes having to be discussed or approved by the council. Someone along the years the council lost its way and has felt that it needs to stick its fingers into places that it really doesn't belong. Its really become like the upper management at a large company that slows its developers down, instead of helping make them more efficient. About the issue in discussion, Petteri was recalling that contrary to what anyone new to Gentoo might conclude from the current discussion, the issue of eclass deprecation has been subject to at least 2 separate discussions in the past 2 or 3 years and that in the last round there was a proposal for setting minimal deprecation time frames. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections Jorge, I remember very clearly as you and I were both council members at the time. My point is that this discussion does not need to even happen and the council shouldn't even remotely be involved here. Let developers develop. -- Doug Goldstein
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11-07-2010 21:56, Doug Goldstein wrote: On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Doug. Jorge, I remember very clearly as you and I were both council members at the time. My point is that this discussion does not need to even happen and the council shouldn't even remotely be involved here. Doug, you probably mean you and Petteri were council members. I'm serving my first term as a council member. I read Petteri's comment as a developer comment. At most, as the lead recruiter for a few years now. I didn't read it as coming from a council member. Let developers develop. No arguing from me about it. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMOlh8AAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPFwEP/0YveY/B/uoPHdT8339zD8t2 Wnbu8q0qleKx7H4Kq+Dnovay4OwrUl6YVAnyKuNtf/1Ls/QZ3tpCPfPo3lJ1nZIw eXB89Ph1+n5mvd2L8MVylcKtgyqLKSicfpY7yTFNPNtZm11RXp6O8Qg6sS34veA+ ublbzXbI45goKpmEzuqAcM/8xzKddy0ejdPEssql97CePioGF+AtBDafSSdgQJBK 8FCqRidSyQwRYE337xEmR6QUm2E+8dB9moaxSs4P1Q/+JR9yLknj1J01h9cVZs5o m0oV7MDWDi7u7qupPh2e8IwRGpUpNiSyZ+WDLrB4DS/eMLherkwwBPzXjFJu6NAA +d3VIYKVorSaESZQlO3+5YoxwE/hF5VmBVbwS73YLQtn+igzEpVVTtKA6I6uJpMc lXx1jS/OnSfj6/hsd7XzJVoqsGIPCmvrQHGXBZ6Sgb4ISyV4bguU0hrrBegmKBPS h0Yuy9STc0z/RpQ9oFi+Sd83RTSde5bhHzMwP+9wJIDR1lC22xmybKdf9CRtPgdi /QxqsdaDdSl/E4vuGNZ4suo0KpklwRgkUjzeUOMEPDeDzFP6DvwKNxZzptjPDKmA vLXos9pIUd712iWX9i6ESTr/0ctKS1aUB+Uc22gRsD40igU3hCHVIAO/GaU1DsJh 8Xm0ewkaOqVK3N30MHSX =u13q -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:34:37 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 09:30:42AM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote:
The standing policy is still not to remove any public functionality from
eclasses. If we decide to start removing functionality the council
should set common rules for it.
Just adding a note on this one- the original technical reason for
this policy (portage inability to run from just the saved env dump)
is no longer an issue.
If people want to allow eclasses to have fluid APIs (specifically
removal of functionality), that's a discussion that needs to start on
the dev level.
Anyone got strong opinions on this one?
I don't believe there ever was such a policy, except for pkg_{pre,post}rm
because of the mentioned technical limitations (which were fixed in portage
2-3 years ago now). If there is such a policy then I've violated it on
several occasions :). In fact, isn't the generally accepted method of
deprecating an eclass to remove all functionality and replace it with a
message in global scope and a # @DEAD tag?
I don't see the advantage of keeping unmaintained broken code no one should
use around in eclasses. You can argue that removing eclass functionality can
potentially break ebuilds in overlays, but if you follow that line of
reasoning then really we should never remove any package from the tree
because it may be a dependency of something, somewhere.
So I'd like to see a policy that treats public functions in eclasses the same
as the last rites policies for package removal: minimum 30 day deprecation
period, mail to dev-announce, etc.
--
fonts, gcc-porting, and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgets to keep us from losing our minds
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
To be honest, the MythTV eclasses have been an ever evolving set of
eclasses for ages now. Ever since it was declared that its now safe to
remove eclasses from the tree since Portage saves eclasses and its
env, therefore it wouldn't cause a problem.
If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering
it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to
going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree
and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the
MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when
a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works
for everyone.
So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or
am I leaving them in?
--
Doug Goldstein
