| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:39:54PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I hope you realise that your desires are conflicting. more |
| 3 |
> > ebuilds leads to |
| 4 |
> > more unmaintained ebuilds. More QA needs more time. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Rubbish. Totally utter rubbish. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The right levels of QA *save* time, because things are done |
| 9 |
> as-right-as-they-can-be first time. Instead of time going into bug fixing |
| 10 |
> and constantly re-doing what has been done, the time instead goes into |
| 11 |
> moving forward, and doing new things. *Too much* QA just bogs the whole |
| 12 |
> thing down, and makes it impossible to get anything done in a timely |
| 13 |
> fashion. The two are very different. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I can think of one way to make dealing with unmaintained ebuilds easy |
| 16 |
> enough. First of all, put in place a mechanism to remove the guesswork |
| 17 |
> about whether a particular package is maintained or not. Then, create a |
| 18 |
> pool of developers who will handle new ebuilds for these packages. Finally, |
| 19 |
> make a site where people can come and tell you when an ebuild is out of date |
| 20 |
> (or just use Bugzilla). That way, packages that no-one particularly wants |
| 21 |
> to maintain are driven by 'customer demand' (for lack of a better phrase). |
| 22 |
> Final step is to setup some 'tinderbox' machines, where the unmaintained |
| 23 |
> ebuilds are automatically built. When they finally break, a bug could be |
| 24 |
> automatically raised on Bugzilla for someone in the pool to look at it. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> There's also another way. Encourage more opensource projects to maintain |
| 27 |
> their own ebuilds. Many of them maintain SPEC files for building RedHat |
| 28 |
> RPMs. So why not try and distribute the work more widely too? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> What are *your* proposals for addressing this? I'd like to hear them. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> > We are trying to address these problems in a way that is |
| 33 |
> > satisfactory for everyone. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Are you speaking for yourself, or for TheManagement(tm)? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
We (the top level managers) are definitely trying to address these |
| 39 |
problems. I'm pretty sure there's GLEPs about it, but I don't know URLs |
| 40 |
offhand. And come on now - don't try to turn us (the top level managers) |
| 41 |
into some kind of secret cabal; you know us. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> > Be assured that these issues are being addressed. This |
| 44 |
> > requires time though, as restructuring is necessary for it to happen. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> You talk like we should run along and play, and not bother BigPeople(tm) |
| 47 |
> like yourself. You'll have to excuse me if I don't like that ;-) It's |
| 48 |
> exactly this sort of *presentation* (I use the work presentation because |
| 49 |
> you've included nothing of substance in your reply!) that makes people call |
| 50 |
> for more openness in the community. Interesting. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I don't think that was Paul's intention. Additionally, we're not hiding |
| 54 |
anything; proposals are on the web in the form of GLEPs AFAIK. However, |
| 55 |
we're still hashing out what we want to do for various things. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 59 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives