1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Hello everyone, |
5 |
|
6 |
Here, with this email, i propose (after a brief discussion on irc with |
7 |
gensteaf)an alternative or at least a new model to address a few issues |
8 |
with our maintainers needs and the inclusion of new packages into the |
9 |
tree. Probably an alternative (temporary?) as well to the sunrise |
10 |
project as the subject of this email suggest. |
11 |
|
12 |
The idea is very simple, i will generally describe it here. |
13 |
|
14 |
In my opinion, most of the developers are usually afraid of taking care |
15 |
of maintainer-{needed-wanted} packages because of the following reasons: |
16 |
|
17 |
1 - To fix bugs of the package: this might be a very easy task, or a |
18 |
whole nightmare. Many of these packages got bunch of open bugs, so, a |
19 |
developer think twice before going after a package that probably he even |
20 |
doesn't know what it is for, besides that, this task might become very |
21 |
time-consuming , the developer might prefer to invest this time with the |
22 |
packages/herd he already maintains instead. |
23 |
|
24 |
2 - To keep track of upstream: Though it sounds as an easy task, it |
25 |
might become tedious sometimes, mainly if the developer isn't interested |
26 |
at all on the project, and, this is definitely, another important point |
27 |
when maintaining a package. |
28 |
|
29 |
3 - Interesting packages: Which packages should we pick? , There exist |
30 |
interested users/developers to maintain/use such a package?. We don't |
31 |
have an easy way to keep track of this either. |
32 |
|
33 |
These are the main points i have personally faced when picking |
34 |
maintainer-{needed,wanted} ebuilds from bugzilla. So, i am pretty much |
35 |
assuming from a personal point-of-view that others developers might be |
36 |
also finding these problems (sorry if it is not the case). I don't |
37 |
believe we all are happy with the current status of packages in need of |
38 |
maintainers, something must be happening, and i think these three points |
39 |
are part of the problem. |
40 |
|
41 |
Ok, after detecting the problem, we need to solve it right? , the idea |
42 |
is to create a proxy developer structure/mechanism/model/project , where |
43 |
the developers could let all these three points at the hands of the |
44 |
user wanting to get the ebuild included into the tree. |
45 |
|
46 |
The 'modus-operandi' would go like this: |
47 |
|
48 |
1 - We setup a mailing list (yes, yet another one, but this one is gonna |
49 |
be useful!) , call it , proxy-dev@g.o , or proxy-review@g.o. |
50 |
|
51 |
2 - Developers interested to serve as a proxy , subscribe to the list. |
52 |
|
53 |
3 - Users ask on this mailing list if there exist any developer |
54 |
interested to include X, or Y ebuild into the tree. (Probably we could |
55 |
create a template for this?) |
56 |
|
57 |
4 - An interested developer says 'yes' on the list (so the rest of devel |
58 |
can see him too) , and from there on, the developer and the user work |
59 |
off-list. |
60 |
Or a developer can say 'no'. Explaining the reason (if any) of why |
61 |
this ebuild shouldn't be included into the tree. |
62 |
I think this would be solving some bugzilla communication annoyances, |
63 |
and opening the doors of another 'feedback' way between developers and |
64 |
users. |
65 |
|
66 |
This is pretty much the general behaviour , simple right? |
67 |
|
68 |
Now .. most of you must already be thinking, "well .. isn't this the |
69 |
same that going and picking maintainer-wanted ebuilds after all?" |
70 |
|
71 |
Here it comes the trick or 'trap' ;-) |
72 |
|
73 |
The user _has_ to compromise to take care of those previous commented |
74 |
three points that some of us might be afraid of, besides of giving us a |
75 |
centralized way of keeping informed about new ebuilds. |
76 |
|
77 |
The users explicitly compromise to (just to make it clear): |
78 |
|
79 |
1 - To fix *all* bugs and problems of the package: The user will need to |
80 |
take care of all the bugs and problems of the specific package. |
81 |
Including all dependencies if needed, in the case that the package need |
82 |
dependencies that are not in the tree yet. (All these requirements |
83 |
should of course be explicitly stated in the user request email) |
84 |
|
85 |
2 - To keep track of upstream: The user needs to know the package's |
86 |
project, and all the communication with upstream should be |
87 |
responsibility of the user. we also sometimes find developers of a |
88 |
specific project who would like to cooperate with gentoo , in my opinion |
89 |
this model would give them an easy and organized opportunity to do so |
90 |
either. |
91 |
|
92 |
3 - This will give us a nice way to officially include into the tree |
93 |
those packages that are more interesting for our users community. After |
94 |
all they are the ones maintaining them. |
95 |
|
96 |
4 - These users will need to keep constant and fluent communication with |
97 |
the developers , you can even call it a 'team' , where the gentoo |
98 |
developer is the official representation of the project. This also would |
99 |
give a nice 'isolated' environment , where Gentoo as a project only |
100 |
would see one developer , so we don't need any internal changes to our |
101 |
current way of working. /me knock infra doors :-) |
102 |
|
103 |
This evidently brings some developers responsibilities too, we will need |
104 |
to review, and test the ebuilds. we sometimes will have to check with |
105 |
upstream, and comment on the ebuild, or fixing some details. But it |
106 |
should be a far minimimal effort than the developer taking care of the |
107 |
package(s) by his own, in the better of the cases, he even shouldn't do |
108 |
anything but to test, review and commit, from there on, the ebuild will |
109 |
be under the standard procedures of maintenance (arch testing to |
110 |
stabilize, bug reports to notify problems, etc). The developer should |
111 |
also take care of any internal developer communication if needed. |
112 |
|
113 |
You also can see, how we would be growing the seeds for future |
114 |
developers right? |
115 |
|
116 |
I know there already exist some developers working as proxy, well, i |
117 |
appreciate if they got any comment or observation about this idea. This |
118 |
is just a way of giving some organization to this kind of cooperative |
119 |
mechanism at some degree. And an 'official' representation inside Gentoo |
120 |
if we agree with it. |
121 |
|
122 |
I think the project offers many advantages , i still don't figure out |
123 |
too much about its implementation details (i hope you guys can help me |
124 |
there too), we for sure would need a nice documentation paper , and |
125 |
probably some bash scripts to automate things as genstef suggested me, |
126 |
would this require a new project too?. I guess the implementation would |
127 |
be something very easy though. /me knock knock infra |
128 |
|
129 |
Ok, this is pretty much all i had in my mind for now, please send |
130 |
suggestions , and criticism. Also, i hope this email helps to bring out |
131 |
any problems i am not considering at the moment, if there exist any, i |
132 |
am more than glad to hear them, as long as we keep the discussion in a |
133 |
friendly and constructive manner. Sure we'll do! |
134 |
|
135 |
Thanks and Gentoo for everyone! |
136 |
|
137 |
|
138 |
- -- |
139 |
|
140 |
|
141 |
Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org" |
142 |
Gentoo Linux |
143 |
|
144 |
|
145 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
146 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) |
147 |
|
148 |
iD8DBQFEyXMKdZ42PGEF17URAs9JAJ9CWRH8MaUMTIYVnlaRiuMFfqAIuACghtKF |
149 |
+QMKfUKkjQlbWw0INaA4/bI= |
150 |
=6GTl |
151 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
152 |
-- |
153 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |