Re: [gentoo-dev] Usefulness of HOMEPAGE=https://www.gentoo.org
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:26 AM Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:24 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote: > > On 12/4/19 5:21 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > > On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:36:07 +0100 > > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > > My point is: gentoo.org as a HOMEPAGE sucks. Please use something > more > > > > specific instead. Even link to gitweb would be more helpful because > it > > > > would at least be relevant to the package in question. > > > I agree so much I would support the addition of a QA check for this. > > > > > I take it you haven't checked the CI results lately? Reaction to that > > probably spawned this ML thread. > > > > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html > > Actually, I've requested that check. However, I didn't expect that many > packages to be affected. > > Given that it's open season on me lately, and apparently people feel > offended when bugs are reported for their packages, I've decided to > start by trying to make people realize the problem globally first. > When QA was run by Diego, he suffered some of the same problems. A lot of this comes down to three factors (IMHO.) - Lack of buy-in from developers. When you add a QA thing, you are asking people to do more work. If they don't agree with the work, they have no real incentive to do it. I don't see a lot of incentive building here and so for some efforts adoption of fixes is slow / low. In addition, expectations are often not set (at all[1]) or not shared with the group (e.g. QA and the community disagree on the expectation; often in relation to timelines or end goals.) - The above leads to the stick instead of the carrot. Instead of helping people adhere to the policy and recruiting the community to do the work, QA takes an adversarial approach where the policy is wielded as a cudgel to 'force' people to do the work. This then leads to the comments like the above (e.g. "its open season on mgorny") because often forcing people to do work on a tight timetable does not generate trust or goodwill and encourages the adversarial relationship between the community and QA. - This perception that perfection is required and imperfect packages are ripe for removal. This again creates this air of anxiety between a package maintainer and QA where QA can basically invent new reasons to mask arbitrary[0] packages. -A [0] I'm not suggesting this is the intent of the QA team, but it's one narrative that a non-QA member might have and the QA team is fairly adversarial and often takes little action to dissuade this narrative from taking hold. [1] Some good examples are things like EAPI deprecation https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/aef37db23c862865fffdd24071fce1ec. You notice that Andreas has articulated some goal (no more EAPI2), has clearly specified the packages that need work, and has encouraged people to help achieve the goal. Even the tone is positive. I want to help! This is different from messaging like "Hey you have 7 days to fix your EAPI2 packages or I will mask them!". This may encourage me to save my packages (from the evil QA team) but it doesn't make me love the QA team at all; it makes me feel negative feelings. > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Usefulness of HOMEPAGE=https://www.gentoo.org
On 12/4/19 7:26 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:24 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote: >> On 12/4/19 5:21 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >>> On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:36:07 +0100 >>> Michał Górny wrote: >>> My point is: gentoo.org as a HOMEPAGE sucks. Please use something more specific instead. Even link to gitweb would be more helpful because it would at least be relevant to the package in question. >>> I agree so much I would support the addition of a QA check for this. >>> >> I take it you haven't checked the CI results lately? Reaction to that >> probably spawned this ML thread. >> >> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html > Actually, I've requested that check. However, I didn't expect that many > packages to be affected. > > Given that it's open season on me lately, and apparently people feel > offended when bugs are reported for their packages, I've decided to > start by trying to make people realize the problem globally first. That's a nice initiatitve. Overall I feel like (global) future CI checks should be discussed first, because they affect everyone who's committing, and it feels weird starting to suddenly receive mails about things you've pushed a hundred times before. As seen by the evergrowing list of new warnings, people just start to ignore these new checks or "fix it on next version bump", because knowledge wasn't there on a previous one. -- juippis signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Usefulness of HOMEPAGE=https://www.gentoo.org
On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:24 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote: > On 12/4/19 5:21 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:36:07 +0100 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > My point is: gentoo.org as a HOMEPAGE sucks. Please use something more > > > specific instead. Even link to gitweb would be more helpful because it > > > would at least be relevant to the package in question. > > I agree so much I would support the addition of a QA check for this. > > > I take it you haven't checked the CI results lately? Reaction to that > probably spawned this ML thread. > > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html Actually, I've requested that check. However, I didn't expect that many packages to be affected. Given that it's open season on me lately, and apparently people feel offended when bugs are reported for their packages, I've decided to start by trying to make people realize the problem globally first. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Usefulness of HOMEPAGE=https://www.gentoo.org
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:24:54 +0200 Joonas Niilola wrote: > I take it you haven't checked the CI results lately? Reaction to that > probably spawned this ML thread. In that case, good work :) pgp3S4GcNB4R5.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Usefulness of HOMEPAGE=https://www.gentoo.org
On 12/4/19 5:21 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:36:07 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> My point is: gentoo.org as a HOMEPAGE sucks. Please use something more >> specific instead. Even link to gitweb would be more helpful because it >> would at least be relevant to the package in question. > I agree so much I would support the addition of a QA check for this. > I take it you haven't checked the CI results lately? Reaction to that probably spawned this ML thread. https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Usefulness of HOMEPAGE=https://www.gentoo.org
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:36:07 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > My point is: gentoo.org as a HOMEPAGE sucks. Please use something more > specific instead. Even link to gitweb would be more helpful because it > would at least be relevant to the package in question. I agree so much I would support the addition of a QA check for this. A page on wiki.gentoo.org would be in every way superior if there's no other good alternative. pgpNRAeRiw91q.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Usefulness of HOMEPAGE=https://www.gentoo.org
On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 13:36 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > My point is: gentoo.org as a HOMEPAGE sucks. Please use something more > specific instead. Even link to gitweb would be more helpful because it > would at least be relevant to the package in question. I've forgot to mention one thing: if you really don't have a proper homepage, then we have the special value of: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/No_homepage which is generally better than gentoo.org in the regard that it explicitly defines the problem. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
