Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:16:47
Message-Id: 20070303101111.4928dc2f@snowdrop
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting by Alec Warner
1 On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST) "Alec Warner"
2 <antarus@g.o> wrote:
3 > So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That
4 > Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to
5 > essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be? Because
6 > right now the input is very limited. Gentoo developers are working
7 > on it, the council can see it, but other interested parties cannot.
8 > He sees that as a problem. I tend to disagree with his point of view
9 > in this case; but I can at least see where he is coming from and the
10 > point he is trying to make. Some people want transparency in the
11 > process.
13 Plenty of Gentoo people have input. When it's ready, any Gentoo or
14 non-Gentoo person who hasn't gotten themselves procmailed will have
15 input.
17 > Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are
18 > talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I
19 > have a feeling you would disagree with me. All I really know is that
20 > I am not one of those people. I think this is once again part of
21 > Daniel's point. Interested parties should be able to collaborate
22 > (even if it's in a private repo to keep prying eyes away). But you
23 > are basically turning away a portion of interested parties.
25 Interested parties are more than welcome to ask for access. Not a
26 single person who is complaining about lack of transparency has done so.
28 > I can see why he thinks this is a bad approach. As I said; I
29 > personally don't care. I trust the council will take a good approach
30 > when PMS is ready for peer review. But at the same time I can't just
31 > blatantly discard Daniel's ideas as hogwash because I can understand
32 > his position.
34 The "when it's ready" part is essential. As far as I can see, Daniel
35 considers "anything written at all" to be "ready for peer review".
36 Those of us writing it consider "most things written, but some parts a
37 bit rough" to be ready for restricted peer review, and "we're happy
38 with it but don't claim it's perfect" to be ready for a free for all.
39 Publishing anything before then will just lead to people spending ages
40 pointing out things we already know, which adds nothing -- we want
41 people to be telling us things we don't know.
43 --
44 Ciaran McCreesh
45 Mail : ciaranm at
46 Web :
47 Paludis, the secure package manager :


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting Charlie Shepherd <masterdriverz@×××××.com>