1 |
I totally second this proposal. |
2 |
|
3 |
I think this would be especially great for small or rarely used packages. I |
4 |
can think of at least a dozen packages that I'd love to see in Portage, but |
5 |
they are not in the tree. Allowing for people that are not developers to |
6 |
maintain easy or not crucial packages is a good thing. It would not require |
7 |
much effort for these people (since some packages are updated like once a |
8 |
year), and even if the ebuilds are of low quality, that would not be a big |
9 |
problem (we could mark those ebuilds specially so that if we developers have |
10 |
some time to spare, we can review them). |
11 |
|
12 |
The only problem I see, like Anant mentionned, is that we would need to |
13 |
restrict commit access to parts of the tree. Not sure if that is possible. |
14 |
|
15 |
Elvanör |
16 |
|
17 |
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Anant Narayanan <anant@g.o> wrote: |
18 |
|
19 |
> Hi, |
20 |
> |
21 |
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even |
22 |
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole |
23 |
> > Gentoo dev list to see. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> If it's not too late for this month's meeting, I'd like to discuss the |
26 |
> possibility of including a new "post" in our developer base - the |
27 |
> package maintainer. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> a) The requirements to become a package maintainer for Gentoo may be |
30 |
> lesser than that of the full-fledged developer. This serves a couple |
31 |
> of purposes: |
32 |
> - Users might become more motivated to becoming a maintainer for |
33 |
> Gentoo, since it would require less time and effort from their end |
34 |
> - Might reduce the number of orphaned packages we have in the tree |
35 |
> |
36 |
> b) Some existing developers might want to switch to this post, if they |
37 |
> feel that package maintenance is all they really want to do with |
38 |
> Gentoo. This has the advantage of requiring lesser time from their |
39 |
> side, while not feeling the pressure of being "responsible". We |
40 |
> already have arch-testers, so this will fit in nicely with our current |
41 |
> development model. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> c) The actual developer post may be taken up by existing developers |
44 |
> who make wide-ranging or significant changes to Gentoo, as a whole. |
45 |
> Examples include: package manager development, eclasses, |
46 |
> documentation; basically anything that would require a GLEP or commit |
47 |
> access to the whole tree - you get the idea. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> Some of you may argue that we already have proxy-maintainers. That's a |
50 |
> great idea, all I'm asking for is for us to formalize the position. |
51 |
> Giving a proxy-maintainer an official acknowledgement will definitely |
52 |
> attract more users to contribute. Meanwhile, developers can do |
53 |
> innovative things that they really like without having to maintain |
54 |
> packages just because of a formality. Giving package maintainers |
55 |
> commit access to parts of the tree might turn out to be tricky though, |
56 |
> this needs discussion with infra. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> I'd really like for us to think through this proposal - I strongly |
59 |
> believe that this will improve the quality of Gentoo development as a |
60 |
> whole, and reduce the number of open bugs and their turnaround times. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Cheers, |
63 |
> Anant |
64 |
> |
65 |
> P.S. As some of you may have already guessed, this proposal is based |
66 |
> on Debian's approval of a similar position in their developer |
67 |
> hierarchy last year: http://www.us.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003 |
68 |
> |
69 |
> P.P.S. Maybe this is more suited for -project, but everyone knows that |
70 |
> nobody reads that list :-p |
71 |
> -- |
72 |
> gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
73 |
> |
74 |
> |