| 1 |
Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I have had this project in my mind for a while, so it's about time to |
| 5 |
> get it out there, as to see if feedback finds it a good one - and if |
| 6 |
> that is so, if there are people who want to make it happen. |
| 7 |
<snip> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Hmm, I wonder what the point is when there is 400 maintainer-needed bugs |
| 10 |
open.. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think a maintainer-wanted team won't accomplish much because it just |
| 13 |
uses more developer time from a pool of "not enough time" that exists |
| 14 |
already. If people are a) too lazy to contribute to sunrise, b) don't |
| 15 |
know about sunrise, or c) don't know enough about ebuilds to contribute |
| 16 |
to sunrise, then we need to fix[1] that. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I don't see any reason to create a team that duplicates the sunrise |
| 19 |
work. Keep in mind, I am against pretty much any overlay, I think work |
| 20 |
should be kept in the main tree. But, for ebuild maintenance with |
| 21 |
limited developer time, sunrise just makes sense(tm). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Some other possible directions include: |
| 24 |
1) maintainer-needed team - Where a group maintains the set of 761 |
| 25 |
m-needed packages. |
| 26 |
2) proxy maint project[2] - Where a group helps users commit to the main |
| 27 |
tree, very similar to the sunrise project. Very similar to this proposal |
| 28 |
but better conserves our developer time. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-Jeremy |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
[1]: http://dev.gentoo.org/~darkside/sunrise_proposal.txt |
| 33 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~darkside/sunrise_status.txt |
| 34 |
[2]: http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/proxy-maint/ |
Archives