1 |
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 23:52 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
2 |
> Packages are grouped into herds, which are managed by projects. If a |
3 |
> package doesn't belong to a herd, then it doesn't belong to the project, and |
4 |
> other developers are free to take ownership of the package and include it |
5 |
> into the tree. |
6 |
|
7 |
Umm... pretty much all of these packages would belong to a herd. In |
8 |
fact, I haven't seen a single package added to bugzilla that *doesn't* |
9 |
belong to some herd. Just because the maintaining *project* doesn't |
10 |
want it doesn't mean it doesn't belong to that herd. |
11 |
|
12 |
> A great example of this are web-based applications. The web-apps project |
13 |
> does not own all the web-based packages in the Portage tree. There are many |
14 |
> such packages in the tree that are managed by developers that are not part |
15 |
> of the project. The web-apps project gets to decide what happens to the |
16 |
> packages grouped in the web-apps herd, but we neither have the right (nor |
17 |
> the desire) to tell other developers that they can't add web-based packages |
18 |
> to the tree; nor do other developers require our permission before adding |
19 |
> packages to the tree. |
20 |
|
21 |
Again, you are confusing herds and projects. |
22 |
|
23 |
Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the |
24 |
tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are |
25 |
going to be the sole maintainer of the package, games should be the |
26 |
herd. Why? Because it is a game, silly. |
27 |
|
28 |
There are quite a few packages under games-* that are completely |
29 |
maintained by someone not on the games team, which means it is not |
30 |
maintained by the games project. That doesn't change the fact that it |
31 |
is a game, and belongs in the games herd. |
32 |
|
33 |
Herd == grouping of packages |
34 |
Project == team of people |
35 |
|
36 |
> What they _do_ need is our permission before dumping packages into the |
37 |
> web-apps herd. If a developer doesn't want a package in our herd, then he |
38 |
> doesn't need our permission to add the package into the tree. |
39 |
|
40 |
That simply seems a bit backwards from the idea of a herd being a |
41 |
logical grouping of packages. You've simply removed logic from the |
42 |
equation and replaced it with permission. |
43 |
|
44 |
> That said, there obviously has to been a level of pragmatism. If a project |
45 |
> recommends that a package doesn't belong in the tree because it is dangerous |
46 |
> to users, then it would be irresponsible of developers to go against this |
47 |
> advice without good reason. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> But otherwise, if you don't want a package in your project, it's no longer |
50 |
> your package to make decisions about. You've declined stewardship of the |
51 |
> package, leaving others free to take on the package instead if they wish. |
52 |
|
53 |
Except I'm not arguing about abandoned packages. I'm arguing about |
54 |
things like kernel sources, that proponents of sunrise say should be in |
55 |
the overlay, even after the kernel team says that it should *never* go |
56 |
into the tree. In this case, the sunrise proponents are explicitly |
57 |
wanting to go against the wishes of the project. This is not and can |
58 |
not be acceptable, as it damages the *project* in question. Remember |
59 |
that people will *always* associate the kernel project with any kernels |
60 |
we provide, even if we put a big fat warning label on it. Warning |
61 |
labels don't accomplish much with some users. |
62 |
|
63 |
> | Please people, be sure you're actually commenting on the issues at hand, |
64 |
> | rather than just adding noise. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> Is that really fair? What's noise to you isn't noise to everyone else. |
67 |
|
68 |
It sure is fair. So much so that mcummings even spoke with me and |
69 |
apologized because he hadn't read what I had said correctly. What he |
70 |
said *was* absolutely correct, in the context to which he was writing. |
71 |
However, it didn't add anything to *this* context, since it was out of |
72 |
context and off-topic. That is pretty much the definition of what noise |
73 |
on a mailing list is. ;] |
74 |
|
75 |
-- |
76 |
Chris Gianelloni |
77 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
78 |
x86 Architecture Team |
79 |
Games - Developer |
80 |
Gentoo Linux |