1 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
2 |
> Mike Auty kirjoitti: |
3 |
>> Petteri Räty wrote: |
4 |
>>> Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us |
5 |
>>> to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one |
8 |
>> problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action |
9 |
>> against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the |
10 |
>> number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
|
13 |
I agree with the above point. |
14 |
Also, as I recall, both Pettery (betelgeuse) and Denis (calchan) have |
15 |
stated before that we no longer have any queue of people waiting on |
16 |
recruiters to join Gentoo. I'm not seeing an avalanche of new blood |
17 |
entering the distro, so I'm wondering where we want to go. |
18 |
If we keep going the route of the last months, I wonder how long it will |
19 |
take until we get under 150 devs. I don't think this will benefit |
20 |
anyone. Furthermore, the trend in the last months was in large part the |
21 |
result of finally retiring people that had been slacking for a long |
22 |
time. This proposal could (would?) lead to sending away people that |
23 |
still do work, albeit at a slower pace or on bursts. |
24 |
|
25 |
>> What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion? I can think |
26 |
>> og keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to |
27 |
>> maintain the devs. Are there others I've missed? If they're worth |
28 |
>> the cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests |
29 |
>> and getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise |
30 |
>> probably not... |
31 |
>> |
32 |
>> Mike 5:) |
33 |
>> |
34 |
>> [1] http://dberkholz.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/redux-gentoos-top-3-issues/ |
35 |
> |
36 |
> If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues |
37 |
> either. This means that you should have devaway on. |
38 |
> |
39 |
|
40 |
As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're |
41 |
forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that |
42 |
we have many different roles. |
43 |
Although you're talking about ebuild devs only - so doc devs, infra and |
44 |
forums staff are exempt from this rule - you're assuming (asking?) that |
45 |
all people with access to gentoo-x86 are package maintainers and do a |
46 |
few, regular commits to the tree. As others have said, that assumes |
47 |
people keep more than a few ebuilds and that those packages require |
48 |
constant attention. |
49 |
Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the |
50 |
existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA |
51 |
members? Are they also obliged to do a weekly commit to keep their |
52 |
"privileges"? |
53 |
Finally, I thought the whole point of removing access to infra boxes |
54 |
(which is the end result of retiring a dev), was a concern with security |
55 |
and not a way to get rid of people - with the exception of |
56 |
administrative action by devrel. |
57 |
|
58 |
We've been having a few discussions about the future of Gentoo for some |
59 |
time and people have shown different goals and views on its future and |
60 |
on how to get there. One of the views seems to be that we need (only |
61 |
need?) an "elite" of super-devs that do daily (hourly?) commits. I have |
62 |
nothing against people that can give so much to this project, but I |
63 |
don't think it's reasonable, desirable or healthy to expect everyone to |
64 |
be able to that level of commitment. Also, wasn't this distro at one |
65 |
point all about community? I don't think raising the commitement level |
66 |
helps to involve people and as William (wltjr) pointed out shouldn't we |
67 |
be more concerned with quality than with quantity? |
68 |
I understand and agree that ebuild devs should keep a minimum level of |
69 |
work to justify their access to the gentoo-x86 tree. I would also like |
70 |
to have a few devs that can do major commits (although commit sprees can |
71 |
have their own problems), but I think there's still a place in this |
72 |
distro for people that want to maintain a few packages, that want to do |
73 |
AT work, that care with the QA of the tree or that work on releases. |
74 |
These people shouldn't be sent away, just because they can't keep with |
75 |
weekly commits (not enough work or time?) or because they work in bursts. |
76 |
|
77 |
As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate |
78 |
about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. Afterall, |
79 |
if gentoo-x86 was a git tree and or we had acls in the tree, I don't |
80 |
think we would be having or would need to have this argument. |
81 |
|
82 |
> Regards, |
83 |
> Petteri |
84 |
> |
85 |
|
86 |
-- |
87 |
Regards, |
88 |
|
89 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
90 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE |
91 |
-- |
92 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |