1 |
I don't think this (the general idea) is a heretical thought, in fact it was |
2 |
around for quite some time. See #1523 for example, which actually came out of |
3 |
a similar thread back ?5? years ago. |
4 |
(There were no GLEPs back then, for those of you who will wan't to go "why |
5 |
this isn't it glepped?" :). There were no overlays, even no KEYWORDS back |
6 |
then either, so be carefull if you read it - it is quite outdated (half of |
7 |
what is discussed there is already implemented in fact) and uses old |
8 |
terminology.) |
9 |
But then I agree about many issues raised regarding the Sunrise project. The |
10 |
way it is pushed will not offload anything off the developers and is quite |
11 |
likely to do quite the contrary.. |
12 |
|
13 |
The main issue: |
14 |
to make it fly and really make something useable (supported by users, *not* |
15 |
taking devs out of the loop and *not* loading them any more) one (at least) |
16 |
ingridient is missing IMNSHO. That is: some ranking system - for the ebuilds |
17 |
*and* for the users. It was referenced as voting system in that bug, we also |
18 |
had gentoo-stats project (now like what, 4 years ago?) which was not quite |
19 |
the same but addressing similar and more immediate issue. |
20 |
|
21 |
This part of the process (the rankings), taken as an "entity in itself", is |
22 |
not that straightforward (meaning a significant tossing of the design ideas |
23 |
would be necessary) and the benefits are not that vital. I think these were |
24 |
the main reasons it did not take off as a standalone project (e.g. |
25 |
gentoo-stats was restarted a few times, but eventually died). While it is |
26 |
nice to have some idea of package usage (which was the main goal of |
27 |
gentoo-stats) or get some fuzzy feeling on "I (user) rated holier than thou |
28 |
because of my superior ebuilding skills" (voting process in that bug), these |
29 |
are clearly not enough to create something sustained. And I am not talking |
30 |
about ethics here (this is re: ratings for users - this was actually |
31 |
mentioned a few times, so I'll address it right now). A general rule - if |
32 |
something is perceived worthy it will be done, no matter how unethical. Even |
33 |
if we (the devs) would ban this, nothing stopped the users to create |
34 |
something similar on their own (who knows, based around BMG, forums or |
35 |
whatever). The fact that this did not happen IMHO illustrates pretty well |
36 |
that this is a no-fly thing on its own. |
37 |
|
38 |
On the other hand I think that just opening up the barrier and allowing users |
39 |
to easily bring stuff in is just the same no-fly-by-itself thingy. The |
40 |
reason: you have to provide some control over quality or you will get another |
41 |
BMG, and my understanding is (the Sunrise thread was pretty long, so I cannot |
42 |
be totally sure :)) that that was generally accepted. Now, we have two ways |
43 |
to add control: |
44 |
|
45 |
1. Involve devs, directly or indirectly - this is what Sunrise is proposing |
46 |
and many devs strongly object. |
47 |
|
48 |
2. Involve users and leave it on their side. There were a few words said about |
49 |
how users would take care of it all, but I did not get a clear idea of a |
50 |
workflow.. |
51 |
|
52 |
First on #1. |
53 |
Sunrise proponents basically say: "we will take care of it all, nobody needs |
54 |
to care". Many devs object: "as long as it has anything-gentoo in its |
55 |
name/affiliations we *will* feel the consequences and *will* have to care". |
56 |
(and now Sunrise poeple basically said that without gentoo in affiliatio it |
57 |
is pointless). |
58 |
To that I'll add that in any case, bacause of the scale, there is just no way |
59 |
Sunrise people themselves are going to be able to keep up. Even if their |
60 |
involvement is reduced to the very basic stuff. (This was implied or shortly |
61 |
noted in some replies, but I wanted to clearly restate it now..) |
62 |
But then, involving users without clear workflow and QC will just create |
63 |
another mess - "just another BMG" as some people called it. |
64 |
|
65 |
So, here we go, its number 2 and it requires some structure. |
66 |
The most fluid one I can think of is a rankings system. For the packages |
67 |
(based on reviews of the code, emerge success, usage testing. Can be a |
68 |
compound parameter or multidimentional. That bug has some details, but not |
69 |
much of those - needs serious redesign I'd say to bring it to present from |
70 |
the past..) |
71 |
and for the submitters/editors - based on the ratings of their submissions |
72 |
perhaps (the most straightforwards one), possibly on a few more factors. |
73 |
|
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
So, to summarise: |
77 |
1. I do agree that in general that (ease of user-side care) is a good thing, |
78 |
however this requires (quite) a bit more work than just setting up an |
79 |
overlay.. |
80 |
|
81 |
2. (at least) two things - the ease of submission/access to packages and |
82 |
QC/ratings are quite tied together and have to be designed/implemented at the |
83 |
same time. (And there is some empirical evidence to back this up - BMG and |
84 |
gentoo-stats for one) . |
85 |
|
86 |
George |
87 |
|
88 |
вівторок, 13. червень 2006 18:10, Grant Goodyear Ви написали: |
89 |
> Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that |
90 |
> we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of |
91 |
> just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an |
92 |
> expectation that it would add to developer workloads. The former is |
93 |
> certainly a real problem, although signing (assuming a reasonable |
94 |
> web-of-trust) could mitigate that some (at least we'd know who to |
95 |
> blame). The latter, however, is conjecture, and the only good way to |
96 |
> verify it would be to actually try it and see what happens. Oh, and |
97 |
> there's also a very real fear that if things go horribly wrong, that |
98 |
> Gentoo's reputation would suffer quite badly. Perhaps I'm naive, but I |
99 |
> tend to think that if we were to advertise project sunrise as |
100 |
> experimental, temporary, use-at-your-own-risk, and |
101 |
> might-break-your-system, and even put it on hardware without a |
102 |
> gentoo.org address and add a portage hook that warns whenever the |
103 |
> project sunrise overlay is used, then our reputation isn't really likely |
104 |
> to suffer even if it's a complete disaster. |
105 |
> |
106 |
> So, Chris, what have I failed to address that would make this a really |
107 |
> bad idea? |
108 |
> |
109 |
> -g2boojum- |
110 |
|
111 |
-- |
112 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |