1 |
Thomas Cort wrote: |
2 |
> The number of opened bugs has always been higher than the number of |
3 |
> closed bugs in the bug stats listed in every 2006 GWN. How is this |
4 |
> 'going forward'? It seems to me like we are falling behind. |
5 |
|
6 |
Take a closer look at the statistics. The numbers seem drastic, but once |
7 |
you've seen the queries behind them you know how to interprete them and |
8 |
things don't look that bad anymore. |
9 |
|
10 |
>> > - Make every dev a member of at least 1 arch team |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> Which doesn't mean he will ever keyword stuff stable, other than his |
13 |
>> own, which he already can... Let's face it: most devs are mainly |
14 |
>> interested in their stuff, getting their stuff keyworded, and many |
15 |
>> wouldn't anyway have the time to efficiently work on an arch-team, as |
16 |
>> members of such I mean, not just as "I'm a member, so I keyword my |
17 |
>> stuff, that's it"... For that I agree with the current practice: if you |
18 |
>> want that, ask the arch-team first. ;) |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Every developer should have access to at least 1 Gentoo system. They |
21 |
> should also be able to determine if something is stable or not. It |
22 |
> would cut down on the number of keyword/stable bugs if developers did |
23 |
> a lot of their own keywording. |
24 |
|
25 |
We had this model already, the x86 arch team did not always exist. We |
26 |
could revert to the old one, would be less bureaucratic. Would also take |
27 |
quite some load off the arch teams. Would also result in worse overall |
28 |
quality of the tree. *shrug* |
29 |
|
30 |
>> > - Double the number of developers with aggressive recruiting |
31 |
>> |
32 |
>> That's something that goes on since... forever! Gentoo's continuously |
33 |
>> recruiting new people, more aggressive recruiting has already been |
34 |
>> proposed many times, but it was always agreed to try to maintain a |
35 |
>> relatively high standard of new recruits, and if you want quality, |
36 |
>> finding loads of people who "just happen" to have the time and |
37 |
>> dedication to become a Gentoo dev isn't that easy. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Even when someone is found it is hard for them to find mentors. We |
40 |
> need to improve this. I had found someone who wanted to join the sound |
41 |
> team and I was unable to locate a mentor for him (I wasn't a dev for 6 |
42 |
> months then, so I couldn't do it myself). I e-mailed sound@g.o and |
43 |
> only one person offered. The person who offered fell through because |
44 |
> he didn't have enough free time. |
45 |
> |
46 |
>> > - No competing projects |
47 |
>> |
48 |
>> Kills innovation... Who comes first has total monopoly of that branch of |
49 |
>> things basically... I'd never agree to something like this, personally. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> What happened to working together? Should we work together instead of |
52 |
> competing against each other? |
53 |
|
54 |
Sometimes you want to achieve the same goal by totally different means. |
55 |
Sometimes there are good reasons for a complete new start. It does not |
56 |
even mean you don't communicate anymore. Brian Harring, although working |
57 |
on pkgcore which basically competes portage, communicates a lot with the |
58 |
portage team and vice versa, in a very productive manner. Nevertheless, |
59 |
you won't find anybody on the portage or pkgcore team saying that it |
60 |
would have been better to incorporate the ideas of pkgcore into portage. |
61 |
Sometimes it's simply better to start all over again. |
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
Kind Regards, |
66 |
|
67 |
Simon Stelling |
68 |
Gentoo/AMD64 developer |
69 |
-- |
70 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |