Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts on the whole gentoo future discussion
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:02:45
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts on the whole gentoo future discussion by Matthew Marlowe
1 On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:00:08AM -0800, Matthew Marlowe wrote:
2 > Hi all,
3 >
4 > The following are just my opinions/summaries:
5 >
6 > 1) It appears that the most dissatisfied devs are those
7 > who have been proponents of the "enterprise" aspect
8 > of gentoo. When they say that not much has been
9 > accomplished in the last 2 years, I think you have to
10 > look at it from the enterprise point of view. GLEP19
11 > never got anywhere. Other than small improvements,
12 > I'm not sure anything positive has happened. If anything,
13 > Gentoo appears to be heading more in the "desktop"
14 > and "hobbyist" direction. That might be what they mean
15 > when they say gentoo is becoming irrelevant.
16 >
17 > cool stuff happening in gentoo on the hobbyist and desktop
18 > side.
20 Where is the effort to actually make glep19 a reality? I've sniffed
21 around from the portage side of things, and personally I've not seen
22 any actual work done towards it.
24 Same thing with a 'central vision' provided notion of
25 parallel-fetching- wasn't implemented till someone who was annoyed
26 enough, got off their ass and implemented it.
28 If it wasn't clear from my badly worded previous email, effectively,
29 you want it, get off your butt and get it. No free lunches unless
30 you're lucky enough to have someone willing to do the work for you.
32 Not stating that each group is going to do only what ever they deem
33 (although frankly, some groups seem to operate close to this), but I
34 *am* pointing out that all of the issues with ent. gent., I've not
35 seen anyone actually work on them.
37 See my point? Glep19 went no where because it was a proposal
38 (seemingly) without any actual work done on it.
40 Of course it's going to stall out, proposals do not translate to code
41 without resources (manpower) to make it a reality.
43 > Therefore, I think the devs who favor the desktop stuff
44 > just really arent understanding how the enterprise devs
45 > have been disillusioned here.
47 See above. I stopped poking about glep19 due to the fact nobody
48 seemed to actually be doing anything.
50 Reiterating it so it's absolutely clear, reality is that those who
51 want it have to do the work. Hell, it's stated in the glep process.
53 Yes, would be nice, but I'm more inclined to work on portage
54 then on specializing the tree/snapshott'ing process for others when
55 they haven't even started the basic work required (nor is the proposal
56 even particularly finished/fleshed out). Maybe if the core of glep19
57 were actually fleshed out in the glep, and the _basic_ initial work
58 was finished I'd have an interest, but right now I (bluntly) don't
59 care enough about a special interest to jump in and effectively spear
60 head their own proposal.
62 Note also that I'm picking at glep19 here; I'm not picking at efforts
63 to stabilize the tree nor introduction of ent. features into gentoo.
65 Merely pointing out the core of ent. gent. must be glep19, yet
66 those who want it aren't doing anything to achieve it.
69 > 2) Although the "future discussion" doesnt seem to be bringing
70 > devs any closer together, I saw at least a few decent suggestions
71 > that we should follow up on.
72 >
73 > - Have a planned annual developers conference
74 > I think this is critical, I would be willing to help with the implementation
75 > if it gets the green light.
76 >
77 > - Consider the possibility of eventually redefining gentoo entirely as a metadistribution
78 > and have devs more formerly broken up into different teams of enterprise, desktop, etc
79 > devs where the eventual product might be seperate trees or release media for each
80 > team.
81 See my previous email about what 'redefinitions' and 'refocusing' and
82 'specialization of interests' will actually accomplish.
84 People organize on their own, sometimes badly, sometimes better then
85 any management overhead could achieve. Either way, the possibility
86 you state doesn't provide any backing for a reason to do so, thus I
87 wonder what it actually would accomplish :)
89 ~harring