| 1 |
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Please review the following draft: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Regarding this paragraph: "Gentoo project provides a specific set of |
| 12 |
> official channels of contribution in which all project members are |
| 13 |
> required to participate. The exact list of these channels is outside |
| 14 |
> the scope of this specification." |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> i'm not actually certain that the first sentence is true. I think the |
| 17 |
> only "official channel" of any kind that project members are required |
| 18 |
> to participate in is gentoo-dev-announce, and maybe gentoo-core. I |
| 19 |
> don't think devs are actually required to either file or look at or |
| 20 |
> resolve bugs, for example. Obviously it is encouraged. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I'd suggest just rewording this section to something like: |
| 23 |
> "Contributions can be accepted via any channel (whether official or |
| 24 |
> unofficial), as long as there is at least one project member willing |
| 25 |
> to support the particular channel and either commit or proxy the |
| 26 |
> contributions appropriately." |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I think this reflects reality. You can submit all the patches you |
| 29 |
> want via bugzilla but it isn't like we punish developers for not |
| 30 |
> getting around to accepting them, unless they're completely inactive |
| 31 |
> Gentoo-wide. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I disagree here. I dare say that Bugzilla is obligatory for all |
| 34 |
developers (they get an account there during recruitment, after all). |
| 35 |
I agree they aren't required to accept patches but if a developer |
| 36 |
outright ignores all attempts of communication, you know what needs to |
| 37 |
be done. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> I do think the copyright issues belong in their own policy for the most part. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Part of me wonders if this really needs to be a GLEP (a mostly |
| 42 |
> inward-facing policy document) when it mostly documents existing |
| 43 |
> practices and policies. Maybe what is needed is a more outward-facing |
| 44 |
> document, or some workflow documents? The motivation states "Multiple |
| 45 |
> developers have noted various suggestions on Gentoo git workflow but |
| 46 |
> it never became an official policy," but I don't see any kind of |
| 47 |
> workflow really being solidified here either. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> I guess my question on that front is what is the actual gap today, and |
| 50 |
> does this GLEP close it, and if not, is there either a better way, or |
| 51 |
> can we make the GLEP stronger to actually close the gap? Just because |
| 52 |
> a workflow is optional doesn't mean that we can't standardize how it |
| 53 |
> is done. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling |
| 56 |
it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was |
| 57 |
supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they |
| 58 |
either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just |
| 59 |
never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions' |
| 62 |
are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or |
| 63 |
special rules to cover them. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement |
| 66 |
somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a |
| 67 |
straightforward solution to make it global. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
Best regards, |
| 71 |
Michał Górny |
| 72 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives