| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 15:51 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 3/23/06, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I see no problem with providing these sorts of overlays to |
| 4 |
> > bridge the gap between contributing users and developers. I *do* see a |
| 5 |
> > problem with simply allowing random overlays from any developer for |
| 6 |
> > anything. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That's a reasonable point, and it's an experience I've not personally |
| 9 |
> been on the receiving end of. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> But the flip side is reasonable too. Our governing metastructure is |
| 12 |
> explicitly clear that: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> a) Projects are not mandatory, and |
| 15 |
> b) That competing projects are allowed |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I don't see how we can limit overlays to just packages "owned" by the |
| 18 |
> developers who own the overlay without violating those two policies. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Think about it this way, what if we had two competing products in the |
| 21 |
tree that do the same thing, with the same file names? We would add a |
| 22 |
blocker, no? So what mechanism is there to ensure that there's no |
| 23 |
"blocking" issues between an official in-tree project, and these |
| 24 |
external overlays that are not in the tree? With the tree, we have a |
| 25 |
well-defined policy on this. What policy would we use for the overlays? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 29 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 30 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 31 |
Games - Developer |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives