1 |
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 10:09:11AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> I have the pleasure to announce that we have formed a new Reviewers |
3 |
> team [1] for Gentoo. The team is going to assemble developers willing |
4 |
> to perform ebuild reviews and help contributors improve their ebuild |
5 |
> skills. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> The main goal of the team is to handle GitHub pull requests. We are |
8 |
> going to review incoming PRs, communicate with maintainers and merge |
9 |
> them as appropriate. In particular, we're going to help willing |
10 |
> contributors get high-quality, PGP-signed commits into Gentoo, |
11 |
> therefore helping them prepare to become Gentoo developers. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The side goal is to review current Gentoo commits for major QA |
14 |
> violations and other issues, aiming at improving the quality of ebuilds |
15 |
> in Gentoo and helping other developers using bash, ebuilds and git |
16 |
> effectively. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Reviewers |
19 |
|
20 |
This is good news. There are quite a few developers that manage a small |
21 |
subset of packages while doing tremendous work for Gentoo within that |
22 |
community. For instance, they focus on particular deliverables in |
23 |
repositories which eventually get packaged, or on integration of certain |
24 |
components which have a strong, broader community coverage. |
25 |
|
26 |
These developers will certainly welcome any helping hand (even post-commit) |
27 |
in keeping packages of high quality. |
28 |
|
29 |
I hope you will also focus on the documentation side. Certain processes that |
30 |
we follow within Gentoo (for commits, for instance the Git workflow) would |
31 |
benefit from a good document *set* (yes, set, as you'll definitely want such |
32 |
processes to have both a single-screen version as well as an elaborate |
33 |
version). |
34 |
|
35 |
I've also found myself often looking for similar ebuilds in which a certain |
36 |
problem would already have been implemented. For instance, ebuilds with an |
37 |
optional python part using the python-r1 eclass. Do you think it is |
38 |
worthwhile to have a number of packages assigned as good examples? |
39 |
|
40 |
Wkr, |
41 |
Sven Vermeulen |