1 |
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 06:53:51PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
3 |
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
4 |
>> Hash: SHA1 |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: |
7 |
>> | However, as has been pointed out several times in this thread already, |
8 |
>> | back when the devloper community agreed to the overlays project it was |
9 |
>> | also agreed that projects similar to what is now known as Project |
10 |
>> | Sunrise was not be present on overlays.gentoo.org. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> Can you provide a reference to this, please? I've been through my -dev |
13 |
>> M/L archive several times, and cannot find an email where I agreed to |
14 |
>> this. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Perhaps not in those exact words, I admit. But the general consensus |
17 |
> in my eyes, and I'm not alone with this view according to other |
18 |
> replies to this thread, was that the purpose of overlays.gentoo.org |
19 |
> would be to provide a common place to host project and developer |
20 |
> overlays - not a place to host Joe User's ebuild contributions (except |
21 |
> for users regularly contributing to specific teams/herds and |
22 |
> devs-in-spee). [1] [2] [3] |
23 |
I think you misunderstand the Sunrise Project. I will tell you why the |
24 |
Sunrise Project in fact complies to all these rules. |
25 |
|
26 |
It only hosts ebuilds that have been reviewed by Gentoo developers or |
27 |
directly committed by "regular contributors" that have taken the ebuild |
28 |
quiz, we name them "trusted committers". We have not yet fleshed out how it |
29 |
works, but believe me we are watching the quality of the overlay and we |
30 |
certainly will not let it rot. |
31 |
You believe we do not have the manpower for this as you have stated in many |
32 |
other threads. But currently we are coping well with the ebuild submissions |
33 |
we get. Additionally #gentoo-dev-help is of big help for us. |
34 |
All current contributors to the Sunrise overlay take effort to improve their |
35 |
ebuild skills and listen to our words closely. I would consider them all as |
36 |
devs-in-spee, I am personally planning to recruit some of them when they |
37 |
have reached a certain level of ebuild writing. They are all around in IRC |
38 |
(as noted in the [1]-mail by stuart you referenced). |
39 |
|
40 |
> You could argue that Project Sunrise *is* a specific project. Fact is |
41 |
> that nobody at that time could predict that a small group of |
42 |
> developers would go ahead and create a project with the single goal of |
43 |
> providing Joe User's bugzilla-contributed ebuilds to end-users through |
44 |
> overlays.gentoo.org. |
45 |
|
46 |
The Sunrise overlay hosts many ebuilds that do not have a herd in CC. It |
47 |
also hosts ebuilds for herds that do not have their own overlay or are not |
48 |
interested in recruiting new contributors. Herds who wish to work with the |
49 |
contributor in a different way are already doing that, and we encourage |
50 |
people to use existing herd/team-specfic infrastructure if there is one. |
51 |
|
52 |
Quote from the FAQ |
53 |
--Can I commit everything I like to the overlay?-- |
54 |
Herds could also have a better official overlay for herd related packages. |
55 |
For example you should not add packages from the PHP overlay or concerning |
56 |
PHP to the Sunrise overlay, rather ask for access to the PHP or Webapps |
57 |
overlay and talk to those herds first, depending on where you feel your |
58 |
package should go. |
59 |
------- |
60 |
The Sunrise project catches all ebuilds that a specific herd does not have |
61 |
the resources or interest in catching. We make sure that contributions have |
62 |
a certain level of QA and are not ignored. As soon as a specific herd/team |
63 |
wants to work on the ebuilds themselves we remove the ebuild from the |
64 |
Sunrise overlay. |
65 |
|
66 |
Our single goal is not to provide Joe User's ebuilds, we have more goals: |
67 |
- provide a central home for contributed ebuilds that do not (yet) find a |
68 |
place in the portage tree |
69 |
- encourage users to write ebuilds |
70 |
- find new recruits |
71 |
- make maintainer-wanted ebuild access and development easier |
72 |
- work with users on new ebuilds and explain them what they can do better |
73 |
Those are also mentioned on our Project Page[1] |
74 |
|
75 |
> In my opinion, creating a new project with this purpose should not |
76 |
> have been allowed. |
77 |
In what other form should we do something like this in your opinion. Should |
78 |
we be recruiters or mentors? I think creating a project and listening to |
79 |
and working in the many comments on the mailing lists was a good idea. |
80 |
|
81 |
> I fear that perhaps creating the project was just |
82 |
> an attempt to circumvent the policy of overlays.gentoo.org, which |
83 |
> states that only project teams and individual Gentoo developers can |
84 |
> have an overlay on overlays.gentoo.org. |
85 |
Sorry, how are we circumventing the policy? We want an overlay where more |
86 |
than one person (me and jokey and the users) work together on improving |
87 |
ebuilds. This is not sensible to do in a developer overlay. We need a |
88 |
project overlay. |
89 |
|
90 |
> It seems that the developers |
91 |
> who started Project Sunrise already planed to use overlays.gentoo.org |
92 |
> as a "free-for-all" overlay with no QA and policy checks back when the |
93 |
> idea of an official overlays project was discussed. [4] [5] |
94 |
|
95 |
You are making two assumptions("free-for-all" and no QA) that are no longer |
96 |
true. Those may have been true with the initial announcement but we have |
97 |
seen that the Gentoo developer community has good points and that it |
98 |
actually works better when we educate people and have all ebuilds reviewed |
99 |
by Gentoo developers. It is only accessible for people who want to commit |
100 |
something and it is only fully accessible when they have taken the ebuild |
101 |
quiz. Sure everyone can come and help, but I see this policy as being more |
102 |
strict and quality-assuring than what is currently done in the project |
103 |
overlays currently. |
104 |
|
105 |
|
106 |
> The security issues of having an official overlay of unsupported |
107 |
> ebuilds was also raised back then. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] As was the |
108 |
> concerns about potential damage to the reputation of Gentoo as a |
109 |
> whole. [11] [12] |
110 |
These comments mostly ignore the fact, that we have QA in place now, |
111 |
everything must be reviewed by gentoo developers. And that the ebuild is |
112 |
_not_ free-for-all, it is only open to people who stick to the rules. We |
113 |
are just actively encouraging people to help and improve their ebuild |
114 |
skills by helping, not giving access out blindly. |
115 |
|
116 |
> On the other hand, having team/herd specific overlays with commit |
117 |
> access from a select few end-users (as was written in the original |
118 |
> proposal) was seen as a good idea. [13] [14] |
119 |
Yes, we are giving commit access only to people who have something to |
120 |
contribute! In fact we are no different from any other herd/team overlay |
121 |
just that we have QA (review), good HOWTOs and actively encourage people to |
122 |
come to us and get our advice and offer their help. |
123 |
|
124 |
|
125 |
> I've spent tonight reading through the entire thread that let to the |
126 |
> creation of the overlays project, and I still come out in the end with |
127 |
> the feeling that a consensus of having overlays.gentoo.org for hosting |
128 |
> the already existing developer and herd/team overlays in a central |
129 |
> place was reached. It also looks to me like the idea of having a |
130 |
> "free-for-all" or a user-contrib overlay hosted there would not be |
131 |
> acceptable due to security issues and risk of damaging the reputation |
132 |
> of Gentoo as a whole. |
133 |
|
134 |
The overlay has been running for some days and I have not seen any "security |
135 |
issues" or damage to our reputation. I am always checking the changes to |
136 |
the overlay and reviewing user ebuilds. Sorry, that needs to be proven. I |
137 |
am argueing that this is not the case with our current review process. |
138 |
|
139 |
But you have a valid security point and I am thinking about putting up |
140 |
signed tarballs of a revision where all commits are reviewed. |
141 |
|
142 |
> I know this doesn't provide solid evidence that this is how it was, |
143 |
> but truth is - we hardly ever see an email on the developers list |
144 |
> stating "This is what we agreed on". Due to the nature of the media we |
145 |
> tend to have a lot of input and discussion back and forth after which |
146 |
> a general consensus is found. This consensus, as I see it, is |
147 |
> reflected in the policy for overlays.gentoo.org. [15] |
148 |
That is what Stuart meant in his mail - it is not forbidden to create a new |
149 |
project just for recruiting and supporting new people that are eager to |
150 |
help. I think this helps gentoo as a whole and in fact helps our reputation |
151 |
as a community distribution which is open for new developers. |
152 |
|
153 |
> I urge people to read through the initial thread that fostered |
154 |
> overlays.gentoo.org as well - if only to refresh peoples memory on the |
155 |
> stuff that was discussed back then. You can start at |
156 |
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09877.html |
157 |
> |
158 |
> Sincerely, |
159 |
> Brix |
160 |
> |
161 |
> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09913.html |
162 |
> [2]: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09921.html |
163 |
> [3]: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09983.html |
164 |
> |
165 |
> [4]: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09962.html |
166 |
> [5]: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09966.html |
167 |
> |
168 |
> [6]: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09918.html |
169 |
> [7]: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09959.html |
170 |
> [8]: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09884.html |
171 |
> [9]: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09964.html |
172 |
> [10]: |
173 |
> [http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09963.html |
174 |
> [11]: |
175 |
> [http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09910.html |
176 |
> [12]: |
177 |
> [http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09946.html |
178 |
> |
179 |
> [13]: |
180 |
> [http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09948.html |
181 |
> [14]: |
182 |
> [http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg09972.html |
183 |
> |
184 |
> [15]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/policy.xml |
185 |
just the project page from me :) |
186 |
|
187 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/sunrise |
188 |
|
189 |
Really I appreciate your effort, but it could be much more wisely used in |
190 |
pointing out to us what is not sensible in our goals and policies. I would |
191 |
really love to make this project a success and acceptable to you, and |
192 |
throwing the same arguments at each other won't help in making it |
193 |
successfull. |
194 |
Please, please work with us instead of against us - really, working together |
195 |
is one of the essential parts of Gentoo and I fear it is forgotten more |
196 |
often recently. |
197 |
|
198 |
Regards, |
199 |
Stefan |
200 |
|
201 |
-- |
202 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |