| 1 |
Phillip Berry wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Sune, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Thankyou for the answer, after a quick search it is indeed the "GLEP 19" that |
| 5 |
> satisfied my query. I also found the answer to my other question: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> "All ebuilds should remain in the tree for a minimum of one year. This allows |
| 8 |
> users to upgrade as infrequently as once per year without risking the stable |
| 9 |
> portage tree leaving them behind without an upgrade path." |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It's truly unfortunate that that particular effort has lost momentum. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Could i trouble you to point me to some more specific discourse regarding the |
| 14 |
> stable portage tree? I wish i could offer my help but I'm afraid i don't have |
| 15 |
> enough of an understanding of the depths of Portage to be of any great use... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Well, the problem right now is what kind of a route do we want to take? |
| 18 |
For example, if Gentoo wanted to try and maintain an enterprise ready |
| 19 |
solution to the stable tree issue, I don't think we could do it. On the |
| 20 |
other hand, if we wanted to establish a few tools/solutions that provide |
| 21 |
some enterprise ready functionality, I think we may be able to do that. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Some ideas I had was just starting small. Bring back the server page on |
| 24 |
w.g.o and start adding documents on how to manage Gentoo servers in an |
| 25 |
enterprise setting. It'd probably be tied to the docs team in some |
| 26 |
fashion. Right now, there are a couple of docs on how to setup specific |
| 27 |
applications, but none really about server administration. I know for a |
| 28 |
fact that I do things in a specific way to maintain the infra servers |
| 29 |
without breakage. I'd like to find time and make a doc about that. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Next, come out with a plan or goals we would like to achieve. |
| 32 |
Stabilizing the tree isn't an easy task. Sure, we could use the |
| 33 |
snapshots used for 2005.1, etc, but maintainence and QA are the biggest |
| 34 |
problem. Dealing with security updates for example is one issue. Do we |
| 35 |
tackle the problem by doing backport patches, or do we just version |
| 36 |
bump, or do we offer both? Parts of that are more for a third party |
| 37 |
entity to try and resolve because of the resources we'd need. Seeing a |
| 38 |
mini fork of Gentoo for the enterprise is one path I see happening down |
| 39 |
the road. Reason being, specific things would need to be changed to make |
| 40 |
Gentoo *really* enterprise ready, such things that would disrupt the |
| 41 |
current Gentoo's development. I would not want to see such things |
| 42 |
happening and hindering what we already are good at. Its almost like the |
| 43 |
Ubuntu project, but not funded by a billionaire :). |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Anyways, ways to get this rolling again? Start combining/creating |
| 46 |
documentation to help server admins out there to manage Gentoo better. |
| 47 |
Come up with a set of goals/projects for us to attain and prioritize |
| 48 |
them. Start getting folks to work on them. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
In the past, most of us either got busy with other projects or real life |
| 51 |
issues, or the folks we had just kind of disappeared. I'm planning on |
| 52 |
getting this rolling again, but things always come up. Also, folks |
| 53 |
always come up with 10 different ways to solve the same problem. We'll |
| 54 |
never come up with something that makes everyone happy. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Anyways, I'd love to hear your feedback and opinions! |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 60 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
--- |
| 63 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 64 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives