1 |
Mike Auty wrote: |
2 |
> So the still unanswered question appears to be, would we like Gentoo to |
3 |
> have fewer packages and less choice but greater QA, stability and a feel |
4 |
> of professionalism, or would we like to have more packages and choice |
5 |
> but a worse QA record, make some mistakes, and have a more |
6 |
> community-based feel? If you're going to try to answer this question |
7 |
> please be delicate with your repsonses, in the past I can recall |
8 |
> developers leaving over exactly this divide... |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
Well, Gentoo is about choice, so why not be both? We already have |
12 |
~arch/arch and overlays, and if the need really arose we could have more |
13 |
levels of QA. Then everybody can have the level of bleeding-edge that |
14 |
they desire. |
15 |
|
16 |
Maybe all we need is to make it easier to contribute to overlays and use |
17 |
overlays, and then have a moderately-higher general level of QA in the |
18 |
main tree, and then the highest level of QA for stable (particularly for |
19 |
system packages). You could even have the opposite - maybe a |
20 |
super-stable overlay for stuff like server apps with backported patches |
21 |
that users could elect to take priority even over the portage tree. The |
22 |
only real gap is a general facility for assigning priority for |
23 |
repositories (possibly on a per-package basis), and maybe a GUI for |
24 |
managing everything. |
25 |
|
26 |
Regardless, as long as devs actually follow policy I don't see any need |
27 |
to boot them. Maybe very long periods of inactivity should result in |
28 |
having accounts locked as a security measure (so that we don't end up |
29 |
with hundreds of ssh keys with commit access floating around who knows |
30 |
where). Booting out lots of devs just takes a limited set of resources |
31 |
and limits them further. If anything we want to find a way to let more |
32 |
people contribute in a significant way - not less... |
33 |
-- |
34 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |