1 |
Thomas Cort wrote: |
2 |
> On 10/4/06, Luca Longinotti <chtekk@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> The number of opened bugs has always been higher than the number of |
4 |
> closed bugs in the bug stats listed in every 2006 GWN. How is this |
5 |
> 'going forward'? It seems to me like we are falling behind. |
6 |
|
7 |
That's not an indicator you can really trust imo... A lot of those are |
8 |
"WTF??? segfault? eh?" and/or waiting on user input because they're |
9 |
irreproducible by the devs involved, but I agree, there are a lot of |
10 |
open ones because lately it seems that people tend to just go MIA, |
11 |
return sometimes, do 1-2 commits, then away again... This has to stop |
12 |
and such people have to be retired, but devrel already does that. And |
13 |
orphaned/broken ebuilds do get punted from the tree... TreeCleaners! |
14 |
|
15 |
>> Who decides what goes away and what now? Which criteria is used here? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Duplicate packages (we don't need more than a few mp3 players), |
18 |
> unpopular packages with only a few users, unmaintained packages, and |
19 |
> broken packages. |
20 |
|
21 |
We've all seen how we don't need more than a few mp3 players when trying |
22 |
to remove XMMS, which is _broken_, _old_ and _dead_. :) |
23 |
One of Gentoo's strenghts is the "it's all about choice" paradigm, don't |
24 |
ever remove that, ever. ;) If there are people willing to maintain them, |
25 |
or if they are not broken and perfectly work, don't kill stuff just |
26 |
because you think it's duplicate/useless/unpopular. |
27 |
|
28 |
> We would provide a set of packages for most things a |
29 |
> user would want to do and then sunrise/someone else provides ebuilds |
30 |
> for the rest. I was thinking something similar to what Ubuntu does, |
31 |
> they provide the basics to do most things and then they have universe |
32 |
> and multiverse repos for extra stuff. |
33 |
|
34 |
Yes, but we're a meta-distro, we do not know what the user wants to do, |
35 |
he just does... I myself run desktops and www-servers, mail-servers, |
36 |
others run embedded-apps, game-servers etc... So the whole breaking |
37 |
stuff up idea that's cursing atm through the blogs just doesn't cut it, |
38 |
and would imo in the end only increase maintainance because packages are |
39 |
spread out and you have to jump through loops to get them like you want. |
40 |
|
41 |
>> > - Formal approval process (or at least strict criteria) for adding |
42 |
>> > new packages |
43 |
>> |
44 |
>> Err what? |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I believe that we have too many packages for us to maintain. We have |
47 |
> over 11,000 packages (over 24,000 ebuilds) and only about 175 active |
48 |
> developers. I don't think its maintainable and I don't think adding |
49 |
> more packages will make it any better. |
50 |
|
51 |
TreeCleaners, to an extent Security etc. _do_ remove what is dead, what |
52 |
has reached points of unmaintainability and brokenness that cannot be |
53 |
anymore supported. The rest still is there because it works (so why |
54 |
remove it?), or because it has someone that keeps it alive (so why |
55 |
remove it?). If there's something to do here, it's kicking out old, |
56 |
broken stuff etc. faster and improving QA (as Kevin already pointed |
57 |
out), definitely not making it so difficult to add new stuff that no one |
58 |
will, that only produces stagnation of the tree in the end. |
59 |
|
60 |
>> > - Make every dev a member of at least 1 arch team |
61 |
>> |
62 |
>> Which doesn't mean he will ever keyword stuff stable, other than his |
63 |
>> own, which he already can... |
64 |
> |
65 |
> Every developer should have access to at least 1 Gentoo system. They |
66 |
> should also be able to determine if something is stable or not. It |
67 |
> would cut down on the number of keyword/stable bugs if developers did |
68 |
> a lot of their own keywording. |
69 |
|
70 |
Cool... But that's exactly what the arch-teams were created "against"... |
71 |
From what I always understood arch-teams are there to have a second set |
72 |
of eyes for stabling and testing stuff, even if the maintainer himself |
73 |
can do that. Then he can stable his own stuff (just ask the arch-team |
74 |
permission), or not... And the arch-team may or not give permission, |
75 |
depends on the package in question. That's a relatively good approach |
76 |
that ensures a measure of peer-review at least on the "important" packages. |
77 |
|
78 |
>> > - Double the number of developers with aggressive recruiting |
79 |
>> |
80 |
>> That's something that goes on since... |
81 |
> |
82 |
> Even when someone is found it is hard for them to find mentors. We |
83 |
> need to improve this. I had found someone who wanted to join the sound |
84 |
> team and I was unable to locate a mentor for him (I wasn't a dev for 6 |
85 |
> months then, so I couldn't do it myself). I e-mailed sound@g.o and |
86 |
> only one person offered. The person who offered fell through because |
87 |
> he didn't have enough free time. |
88 |
|
89 |
Ok, so I don't see how "aggressive recruiting" would improve that... |
90 |
Improving recruiters/mentors capacity would have to be done first, so |
91 |
even if we did some "aggressive recruiting" (which I'm not sure would |
92 |
bring quality... probably quantity "hey cool Gentoo wants new devs, |
93 |
let's join cause I like Linux! w0h000!!11!), we wouldn't have the |
94 |
resources to sustain it. |
95 |
|
96 |
>> > - No competing projects |
97 |
>> |
98 |
>> Kills innovation... |
99 |
> |
100 |
> What happened to working together? Should we work together instead of |
101 |
> competing against each other? |
102 |
|
103 |
Sure, working together is cool, but it doesn't always work, it never |
104 |
always worked. That's maybe sad, but it's true. If you have a group of |
105 |
people with totally opposite ideas than another, but both are, in the |
106 |
end, good ideas, you cannot just tell one group "hey you cannot, do what |
107 |
the others want!"... Let projects compete _if they must_, and let's see |
108 |
how it goes. I thought it implicit that there should be a "let's discuss |
109 |
it and work together" stage first, but if that fails, competing projects |
110 |
should and must imo still be allowed. |
111 |
|
112 |
>> > - Drop all arches and Gentoo/Alt projects except Linux on amd64, |
113 |
>> > ppc32/64, sparc, and x86 |
114 |
>> |
115 |
>> Uhhh is this real? How would this help at all? |
116 |
> |
117 |
> We've got tons of keywording/stable bugs. There aren't enough |
118 |
> developers to do all the proper testing on all of the architectures |
119 |
> supported by Gentoo. Many of the arches are dead or soon to be dead |
120 |
> (m68k, alpha, mips, etc). |
121 |
|
122 |
I know we've got tons of stale keywording bugs, I myself often get upset |
123 |
that I have to wait 6 months on keywords for some package, but otoh I |
124 |
see that just killing off the arch totally isn't probably the real |
125 |
solution... As I already said, a relaxing of the current keywording |
126 |
policy for maintainers is what's needed... If in a month no one from |
127 |
archX keyworded dev-lol/asd stable, I as a maintainer could just drop |
128 |
their stable keyword and revert to unstable, or if it's some major |
129 |
version bump that requires testing for unstable even, just drop support |
130 |
for that arch entirely. Users will then notice and maybe even help if |
131 |
the package they were using suddenly has no more keyword for their arch, |
132 |
or if no one cares... well then, no harm done in dropping that |
133 |
particular keyword... this would in the end produce a kind of |
134 |
"self-dekeywording" of the tree, and make it much cleaner. |
135 |
|
136 |
>> > - Reduce the number of projects by eliminating the dead, weak, |
137 |
>> > understaffed, and unnecessary projects |
138 |
>> |
139 |
>> Again, who's the judge of that? If there is a project with at least one |
140 |
>> person active, it means for him it's not unnecessary... What means weak |
141 |
>> project? What's unnecessary? Sure, kill the dead ones with no activity |
142 |
>> and no active members, that's easy and I agree with that, but the other, |
143 |
>> little ones, who's the one to say "you're understaffed and useless, go |
144 |
>> die!"? :S |
145 |
> |
146 |
> We come up with a list of potential cuts and then the council decides |
147 |
|
148 |
Hmmm still don't see a definition of unnecessary, weak or understaffed. |
149 |
Dead, sure, kill them on the spot. Unnecessary? Who are you, other devs |
150 |
or the council to just tell someone that's working on a project as a |
151 |
volounteer "hey, we think your work is useless, drop it, now!", and |
152 |
understaffed/weak is too subjective, especially since workload anyway |
153 |
changes over time. |
154 |
-- |
155 |
Best regards, |
156 |
Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK |
157 |
|
158 |
LongiTEKK Networks Admin: chtekk@×××××××××.com |
159 |
Gentoo Dev: chtekk@g.o |
160 |
SysCP Dev: chtekk@×××××.org |
161 |
TILUG Supporter: chtekk@×××××.ch |