1 |
Ryan Phillips wrote: [Fri Apr 28 2006, 12:14:53PM CDT] |
2 |
> __Problem: Developer Growth__ |
3 |
|
4 |
I've seen suggestions before that one of the things limiting Gentoo's |
5 |
growth right now is the hurdles involved in becoming a dev. I don't |
6 |
really think the dev quiz is all that onerous, but I'm willing to listen |
7 |
to arguments there. |
8 |
|
9 |
> __Problem: Live Tree__ |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Having a live tree requires people to be perfect. People are not |
12 |
> perfect and requiring it is ridiculous. I love having commits in my |
13 |
> local tree within the hour, but having a stable and unstable branch |
14 |
> makes a lot of sense. |
15 |
|
16 |
Does it? How does having a stable and unstable branch differ from |
17 |
having stable and unstable keywords? |
18 |
|
19 |
On older idea was peer review. Any dev could commit to the |
20 |
not-yet-ready-for-primetime branch, but those commits would have to be |
21 |
peer-reviewed before being added to the user tree. It's a great idea, |
22 |
except (a) nobody wants to do the reviewing job and (b) it would be a |
23 |
full time job. |
24 |
|
25 |
> |
26 |
> CVS doesn't do branching nor tags very well... |
27 |
> |
28 |
> __Problem: CVS__ |
29 |
> |
30 |
> CVS is one of the worst application ever created. The portage tree |
31 |
> needs to move to subversion. A lot of the problems within the project |
32 |
> would be solved by using a better SCM system. The previous problems |
33 |
> regarding the Live Tree and Developer Growth would be solved, IMHO, by |
34 |
> just switching. Branches Work. Tags Work. Reverts work. Moves |
35 |
> work. I don't see any reason not to use it. It just plain works. |
36 |
|
37 |
Have you tried using SVN for the portage tree? I don't know if anybody |
38 |
has recently, but in the past when people tried there were two |
39 |
significant problems: SVN requires at least 2x the tree size for storage |
40 |
on the local machine, and checkouts take something akin to an order of |
41 |
magnitude longer than CVS. The former is annoying, but liveable, but |
42 |
the latter is a deal-breaker. |
43 |
|
44 |
> __Problem: QA Policies__ |
45 |
> |
46 |
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/37544 |
47 |
> |
48 |
> It seems that the QA Policies are a product of a Live Tree, and going |
49 |
> partially non-live would solve the problems listed. |
50 |
|
51 |
QA does help with fixing broken packages, but in my view their most |
52 |
important mandate is to help devs fix bad habits in writing ebuilds. |
53 |
Repoman and lists of best-practices help in this regard, but the QA team |
54 |
tends to be much better at explaining why something is a bad idea. |
55 |
|
56 |
> Conflict resolution should not be a subproject. It should *not* exist |
57 |
> at all. Rules need to be in place to avoid conflict. Having some |
58 |
> sort of voting structure for all the developers (this doesn't mean |
59 |
> requiring everyone to vote) and not just the council or devrel makes a |
60 |
> lot of sense for most things. If I don't like how someone is acting |
61 |
> within the project there should be a vote and then see if that person |
62 |
> is kicked out. No trial, no anything besides a vote. And if I lose I |
63 |
> have to deal with it. Either stay with the project, or find something |
64 |
> else. This solution just works. |
65 |
|
66 |
It's worth noting that with the exception of kicking people out of |
67 |
Gentoo, much of our practices do, in fact, work just this way, although |
68 |
without the formality of a vote. That's what happens when somebody |
69 |
posts to -dev with an idea, it gets kicked around, and some sort of |
70 |
consensus is either reached, or it isn't. In the latter case it's not |
71 |
ready for prime time, most likely. |
72 |
|
73 |
> __Problem: GLEPs__ |
74 |
> |
75 |
> I dislike GLEPs. Usually they sit on the website for a long long time |
76 |
> not doing anything. My vote (+1) is get rid of gleps and do |
77 |
> everything by email and a vote by the developers. AFAIK, the board |
78 |
> votes on the GLEPs. Bad Idea. It stifles things from getting done, |
79 |
> and there is no ownership of who is going to implement the idea. |
80 |
|
81 |
> A new idea proposal should be mailed to a mailinglist (-innovation?) |
82 |
> with details of timeline to completion, impact, and who is doing the |
83 |
> implementation. If it sounds like a good one, then there is a vote |
84 |
> and things proceed. I like progress. |
85 |
|
86 |
It's not quite true that the Council votes on GLEPs, but that's not |
87 |
really germane to your overall point. Despite being the person who |
88 |
created GLEPs in the first place, I'm quite willing to admit that the |
89 |
concept doesn't seem to work as well as I had hoped. I'm not sure that |
90 |
your idea would work better, however, since the only real difference |
91 |
would be in the approval process. Presumably you would still expect to |
92 |
see the sort of iterative refinement of proposals/innovations on -dev |
93 |
that we have now, and I believe that part of the project works |
94 |
reasonably well. The problem, in my view, is that eventually the |
95 |
proposal is approved, and the folks involved are told, in essence, |
96 |
"great idea, go to it", and then it stalls because implementation is |
97 |
_hard_, in general. |
98 |
|
99 |
As an aside, the large number of moribund GLEPs was always an intended |
100 |
outcome. They represent ideas that never got any traction, and thus |
101 |
went nowhere. By having them publicly available we help reduce the |
102 |
number of "hey, what about this bad idea" posts to -dev. |
103 |
|
104 |
> __Problem: Voting__ |
105 |
> |
106 |
> Gentoo has over 200 developers. People are generally against the |
107 |
> voting idea, but I'm not sure why. I think voting should work like |
108 |
> this: if 30 developers (or someother specified number) vote yes to an |
109 |
> idea then that idea passes. It doesn't require everyone to vote, be |
110 |
> at home, be on the computer, and not be on vacation. |
111 |
|
112 |
*Shrug* I don't really have a problem w/ trying some sort of voting. |
113 |
At the same time, it's not clear to me that the outcome will be all that |
114 |
different from what we have now, with the possible exception that debate |
115 |
might get cut off sooner when some sort of threshold vote is reached. |
116 |
|
117 |
> What is interesting is that Source Mage Linux has already voted on a |
118 |
> proposal similar to mine[2]. I truly think that making some changes |
119 |
> in the "gentoo way" would benefit us and make gentoo a truly better |
120 |
> distribution. |
121 |
|
122 |
I tend to agree that our current system is suboptimal, but I'm not quite |
123 |
convinced that the proposed changes would actually improve things. |
124 |
|
125 |
There's a lot here, but perhaps we can streamline things a tad. What's |
126 |
the major problem that you're looking to solve? Is it the shortage of |
127 |
developers, or the lack of progress in a certain area, or the |
128 |
(perceived?) difficulty in getting "foo" accomplished? |
129 |
|
130 |
-g2boojum- |
131 |
-- |
132 |
Grant Goodyear |
133 |
Gentoo Developer |
134 |
g2boojum@g.o |
135 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
136 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |