| 1 |
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 06:33:54 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I think that herds really only make sense if there is some kind of |
| 5 |
> coordinated team effort behind them. Otherwise they're little more |
| 6 |
> than another form of category and a black hole for bugs to go into. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Let's see, some euscan / b.g.o / eix magic yields us: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
net-dialup: pinkbyte, sbriesen |
| 11 |
Listed as herd for 60 packages, category of 57 packages. |
| 12 |
Assignee for 58 open bugs, category of 77 open bugs. |
| 13 |
Almost half of the bugs were not changed for a year. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
net-fs: vapier |
| 16 |
Listed as herd for 20 packages, category of 19 packages. |
| 17 |
Assignee for 52 open bugs, category of 91 open bugs. |
| 18 |
Maybe a large amount of bugs for a single person? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
net-ftp: polynomial-c, voyageur |
| 21 |
Listed as herd for 6 packages, category of 29 packages. |
| 22 |
Assignee for 3 open bugs, category of 48 open bugs. |
| 23 |
Seems this herd deals with a rather small amount of packages, though |
| 24 |
there are still some bugs open for the category. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
net-im: chainsaw |
| 27 |
Listed as herd for 58 packages, category of 77 packages. |
| 28 |
Assignee for 47 open bugs, category of 130 open bugs. |
| 29 |
Maybe a large amount of packages and bugs for a single person? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
net-irc: binki, gurligebis, jdhore |
| 32 |
Listed as herd for 63 packages, category of 71 packages. |
| 33 |
Assignee for 34 open bugs, category of 81 open bugs. |
| 34 |
The extra workload is covered by the third person, is it enough? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
net-mail: eras, hattya, radhermit, robbat2 |
| 37 |
Listed as herd for 186 packages, category of 106 packages. |
| 38 |
Assignee for 80 open bugs, category of 118 open bugs. |
| 39 |
The extra workload is covered by the fourth person, is it enough? |
| 40 |
Compared to net-irc, there are much more bugs open here; maybe |
| 41 |
there are slightly too much packages covered? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
net-news: kensington |
| 44 |
Listed as herd for 21 packages, category of 15 packages. |
| 45 |
Assignee for 7 open bugs, category of 10 open bugs. |
| 46 |
This one is reasonable, but should a single person be a herd? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
net-p2p: armin76, sochotnicky, ssuominen |
| 49 |
Listed as herd for 67 packages, category of 66 packages. |
| 50 |
Assignee for 80 open bugs, category of 119 open bugs. |
| 51 |
Considering how empty the herd was before, this was painful. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
net-proxy: TomWij, dastergon |
| 54 |
Listed as herd for 30 packages, category of 38 packages. |
| 55 |
Assignee for 25 open bugs, category of 52 open bugs. |
| 56 |
Might be reasonable, though we need to act / coordinate more. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
netmon: cedk, constanze, jer, pinkbyte, radhermit, vapier, zerochaos |
| 59 |
Listed as herd for 251 packages. |
| 60 |
Assignee for 106 open bugs. |
| 61 |
This army should be able to deal with it, I assume they coordinate |
| 62 |
it. More than half of them are active on a day to day basis, there |
| 63 |
is certainly no issue with this herd. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
So, the majority of network herds seem to just be overworked. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
> Certainly a few herds are active in this way, but it seems like the |
| 68 |
> majority are not. Where they are not we should get rid of them, |
| 69 |
> unless a team steps up to actively maintain them (defining a project, |
| 70 |
> electing leads, etc). |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
As you can see, most of the network herds I listed here follow this |
| 73 |
kind of trend. There are three options that I see: |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
1. Get more people to join these herds (devs, future recruits, ...) |
| 76 |
and set up project, leads and proper organization. This is the least |
| 77 |
confusing approach; since the same work is done but just by more |
| 78 |
people, which tackles the communication and workload problems. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
2. Combine multiple herds in one bigger "network" herd. If we can't |
| 81 |
just magically get more developers to join these herds, we could put |
| 82 |
all the developers from these herds in one bigger herd to force them |
| 83 |
to organize and communicate. Get one bigger group to pay attention |
| 84 |
to the bugs, without caring whether there is a personal interest or |
| 85 |
not; when you are interested in networking, there should be no |
| 86 |
problem to occasionally deal with another package as well. |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
3. The one you suggest, which would be the approach to go for if |
| 89 |
it is unreasonable to salvage the network herd(s). The problem here |
| 90 |
is that you don't know in advance what will happen with the |
| 91 |
packages; this may yield a lot of unmaintained packages that are |
| 92 |
later dropped from the tree while they work just fine. |
| 93 |
|
| 94 |
Regardless of the option picked; the main problem is lack of manpower. |
| 95 |
|
| 96 |
Maybe we could work on methods to find more interested recruits and |
| 97 |
enlarging the recruiting team, a different approach to committing where |
| 98 |
we put the users central instead of the Gentoo Developers (a pull |
| 99 |
request system like GitHub / BitBucket / ...) kind of like Sunrise or |
| 100 |
maybe something completely different... |
| 101 |
|
| 102 |
The other way to see this problem is a flood of network packages, but |
| 103 |
I think having more packages is a good thing; it makes Gentoo Linux |
| 104 |
useful more a lager audience. Though, overlays achieve this as well; |
| 105 |
but are overlays really the right approach to solve a lack of manpower? |
| 106 |
|
| 107 |
-- |
| 108 |
With kind regards, |
| 109 |
|
| 110 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 111 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 112 |
|
| 113 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 114 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 115 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives