Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Now git has some/all of the needed features, and people wait on a future potential git migration instead of figuring out the important bits now (a good part of that is defined in GLEP 63, but there's no action apart from work on gentoo-keys.I don't have motivation to try pusing this again this year ...) Well, the folks doing the git migration are basically waiting for the infra pieces to be done. A challenge here is that nobody has time, and sometimes the argument gets made that there is no sense doing A because you can't use it without B. The reality is that we need A, B, C, D, E to cut over, and none of them are useful on their own, so if everybody makes this argument we take no action. The actual migration and git tools should be fine now. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project
On 06/11/2014 12:10 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: But, for the most part we just need to get the back-end re-written to work with a git repo. Actually migrating the tree itself to git is largely a solved problem. Weren't we also waiting for some gpg signing stuff to land? That's completely orthogonal (but would be convenient to have as a built-in, which git since ~1.8 does) Since people can't even decide on a key policy in under 5 years I doubt signing is important enough ... Now git has some/all of the needed features, and people wait on a future potential git migration instead of figuring out the important bits now (a good part of that is defined in GLEP 63, but there's no action apart from work on gentoo-keys.I don't have motivation to try pusing this again this year ...)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org writes: Perhaps we could consider GitLab? +1 on that. I have deployed it recently at work and it seems to perform well. *Really* easy to use. Easy to deploy as well. It's written in Ruby, *not Java*. It's possible to have a basic integartion with external issue trackers. It also has an LDAP auth. +1 on docs. We should focus on forcing people who were involved into OpenRC to document what they know. I could do some contributions to OpenRC, but I don't have time for reverse engineering. I have developed some experimental Plytmouth plugin to OpenRC, but it was really time consuming to guess what does what... We cannot let OpenRC die. It cannot happen that systemd and upstart are the only init systems. -- Amadeusz Żołnowski pgpQ46M0fXYSk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Amadeusz Żołnowski aide...@gentoo.org wrote: We should focus on forcing people who were involved into OpenRC to document what they know. Uh, you can't force anybody to do anything, and most of them are no longer around. You can always encourage or ask nicely. You can also set a policy of no further commits accepted without accompanying documentation, but that could just as easily result in fewer commits and not more documentation. And this is why half of FOSS isn't well-documented. Often the docs aren't written by the same people who wrote the code. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org writes: Uh, you can't force anybody to do anything, and most of them are no longer around. You can always encourage or ask nicely. Yes, I meant that: forcing by asking nicely. :-) You can also set a policy of no further commits accepted without accompanying documentation, but that could just as easily result in fewer commits and not more documentation. Yup, that's right, unfortunately. -- Amadeusz Żołnowski pgpkHcxq9buzj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project
Alexey Shvetsov ale...@gentoo.org writes: However this will depend on migration of gentoo-x86 to git Well, we can start evaluating gitlab for git overlays and gentoo hosted projects, such as (back to topic :) OpenRC. Is the infra team interested in this option? pgpqPDX0LzcUz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project
All, I attempted to post an update a bit earlier, but I haven't seen it yet, so I thought I would try again. Thanks to Daniel Robbins of funtoo, I am about to getGentoo installed on another box, so I will be able to take the lead on OpenRC again. He assisted me on Skype today with getting into setup on the box and setting the boot order so I can boot from a cd rom. Also, he volunteered to work with me as a co-maintainer of OpenRC. I should have the new box installed sometime tomorrow or Wednesday, then I will be around for a few days, then sometime on or after 18 June, I have a medical issue that I need to take care of. Once that is done, I should be back in the saddle so to speak. You don't need to be a gentoo developer to work on OpenRC, that work is happening on the #openrc irc channel. Also, the primary OpenRC repository is http://github.com/openrc/openrc, feel free to fork that and submit pull requests. Once I am fully back up and running, I am planning on opening a mailing list for OpenRC. Thanks for your patience, William
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project
В письме от 9 июня 2014 01:36:49 пользователь Michael Palimaka написал: On 06/09/2014 12:41 AM, hasufell wrote: The amount of contributors (with real patches and real ebuilds) is constantly decreasing, because our workflow is horrible. I hope you don't actually think that bugzilla is an appropriate review platform. The problem is finding improvements that everyone is happy with. Gerrit is a no-go as Infra has expressed previously they do not want to touch Java. I set up a public Review Board instance against gentoo-x86 a while back but that saw zero instance. In the KDE and Qt teams we've seen much improved rates of user contribution since maintaining a mirror on GitHub, but excessive use may cause a problem in relation to our social contract (and many people just plain don't like GitHub). Perhaps we could consider GitLab? Yep. Its better to have gitlab || gerrit || ReviewBoard Personaly i have only expirience with gerrit However this will depend on migration of gentoo-x86 to git -- Best Regards, Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov, PhD Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics FSBI Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute, Leningrad region, Gatchina, Russia mailto:alexx...@gmail.com mailto:ale...@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru mailto:ale...@gentoo.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/06/14 18:38, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: Perhaps we could consider GitLab? Yep. Its better to have gitlab || gerrit || ReviewBoard Personaly i have only expirience with gerrit However this will depend on migration of gentoo-x86 to git I really like Phabricator so far. It does not rely on a specific VCS as far as I know. I have only used it with git though. - -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlOUm1wACgkQRtClrXBQc7VOdQD/T+MqXoRDIClRCjMcX9AqWzTK RoCxgZ13bf2nrLiIzvIA/2RU3aidtgU1Gg3RyBg75nSGWnGm0VnNSTkZ+nBM7pSI =Wbly -END PGP SIGNATURE-
