| 1 |
On Sunday 25 June 2006 19:46, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 2 |
> First, thanks to everybody who responded! (not that tehre were many ;)). |
| 3 |
> Interestingly, the most positive result so far seems to be two people |
| 4 |
> expressing interest to join :), so we need at least one more mentor I'd |
| 5 |
> say.. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Sorry about not responding until now - really busy in real life. I am |
| 8 |
currently in the thesis write up and job hunting stage of my PhD with three |
| 9 |
months of funding left - so my Gentoo time may well be fairly limited during |
| 10 |
the next few months. I will do what I can as and when though. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I'll start by refreshing general changes that were proposed: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 1. Make Scientific Gentoo a top-level and create subprojects |
| 15 |
> - this did not seem to get any complaints. So, when we are done with the |
| 16 |
> mainpart I'll try to update the page, like move it to a proper location, |
| 17 |
> redo the blurb and provide links to subprojects. Then I'll ask |
| 18 |
> corresponding teams to produce some descriptions for the corresponding |
| 19 |
> subprojects (its the same .xml essentially, just change the description |
| 20 |
> paraagraph). But lets first get done with the reorg itself.. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This sounds good to me. I think this will certainly be a positive move for the |
| 23 |
work done with scientific applications in Gentoo. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> 2. Create smaller, topical herds to split 316 packages we have under sci |
| 26 |
> right now. |
| 27 |
> - Looks like most people assumed a natural herding of packages by |
| 28 |
> categories (of course sci-libs should not be a separate herd, packages |
| 29 |
> under it should fall under whatever makes sense), so lets try to start by |
| 30 |
> creating a layout that follows. Here are the categories, as they stand now: |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Further is based on a quick glance at ChangeLog's (since I did not get much |
| 33 |
> responce from actual mainatiners ;), so I may have missed somebody/listed |
| 34 |
> somebody extra. Please check and comment accordingly) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Commented in your tracker bug on my involvement - all sounds quite reasonable |
| 37 |
to me. Although I would hate to dilute down too much and end up with one |
| 38 |
developer herds as they are not very productive in general. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> There were talks about creating sci-physics category, however I cannot find |
| 41 |
> traces of that atm (or was it on irc?). If there really are apps for |
| 42 |
> sci-physics it can start combined with sci-astronomy (or not, need a list |
| 43 |
> of packages..) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I would go either way - crystallography and structural packages are also quite |
| 46 |
physicsy depending upon your perspective... |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Any comments on the structure? Also, while sci-xxx is a "natural" name for |
| 49 |
> the category (considering our present layout) it is somewhat cumbersome for |
| 50 |
> the herd. I guess sci- part may be dropped, then, should the rest stay |
| 51 |
> spelled out or people would prefere shortcuts, like math for mathematics, |
| 52 |
> etc? |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I would personally favour dropping the sci- and going for shortened names such |
| 55 |
as maths/math, geo. If there is a great deal of opposition I don't think it |
| 56 |
matters too much though. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Back to work anyway... I am usually around on IRC too if anyone wants to chat |
| 59 |
about this stuff. It is a manic week this week though, so may be not so much. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Thanks, |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Marcus |
Archives