Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brad House <brad_mssw@g.o>
To: Jan Schubert <Jan.Schubert@×××.li>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] CVS and non-devs (again!)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:04:08
Message-Id: 65281.68.105.173.45.1074780199.squirrel@mail.mainstreetsoftworks.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] CVS and non-devs (again!) by Jan Schubert
1 Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gentoo development community
2 as a whole would probably have to switch to something other
3 than CVS. In my experience from CVS, trying to merge back
4 in changes from 2 different branches are nearly impossible (if
5 we wanted to merge in changes from the 'unofficial' branch).
6 Personally, I don't have time to learn some other system at this
7 point in time, so I'd vote against this. Please correct me if
8 I'm wrong on the merging front there, but I use it every day
9 at work, and it's one of the things that gets to me most about
10 CVS.
11
12 -Brad
13
14 > Jon Portnoy wrote:
15 >
16 >>And millions of bug reports from users who don't realize they shouldn't
17 >>report bugs to us on unofficial, unsupported ebuilds, plus users who
18 >>don't realize Gentoo isn't responsible for any breakage, viruses, or
19 >>whatever else propogated by an unofficial tree.
20 >>
21 >>
22 > Jon, what John meant is maybe something like to just allow "qualified"
23 > non devs to support work in the unofficial tree. I'm quite sure that
24 > these non devs feel very responsible for their work. There might be some
25 > BugReports in the beginning, but they will be handled by the responsible
26 > non dev. Maybe some of these non devs will become a dev in the future or
27 > where asked to become a dev in the past but just don't have the time for
28 > such a responsible job (personally this is half of the true for me - the
29 > other half is that i'm feeling that i'm still in the progress of
30 > learning).
31 >
32 > On the other side i believe, that users accessing this unofficial tree
33 > know what they are doing, so it should'nt reflect the official devs that
34 > much. In my understanding this "feature" is requested by people which
35 > are not that happy with the current situation (some of them are these
36 > non devs we talking about). All of them are aware of the consequences.
37 > This tree would be completely out of scope for "normal" users (they most
38 > likely never get in touch with this unofficial tree).
39 >
40 > Maybe all these mails are just a request for an "official" unofficial
41 > tree!? The problem of lots of unsubmitted ebuilds in bugzilla has to be
42 > adressed somehow. You should use the motiviatian and the added value
43 > which these non devs would like to bring in. Don't offend them!
44 >
45 > Thx,
46 > Jan
47 >
48 > PS: If someone of the non devs would ask me, i can say that i've found a
49 > acceptable solution for my occasional activities: Just get a account for
50 > any unofficial gentoo cvs tree and submitt your ebuilds there (and to
51 > bugzilla also, of course). So you are able to maintain your ebuilds, get
52 > familiar with repoman etc. and interessted people can use your ebuilds
53 > by accessing this tree via PORTDIR_OVERLAY.
54 >
55 >
56 > --
57 > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
58 >
59 >
60 >
61
62
63 --
64 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] CVS and non-devs (again!) Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] CVS and non-devs (again!) Lisa Seelye <lisa@g.o>