| 1 |
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:18:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>I would have *no problem* with an opt-in system. Instead of using |
| 5 |
>>"InOverlay" (which is a poor choice anyway... which overlay?) as some |
| 6 |
>>sort of tag, instead, assign the package to the project which maintains |
| 7 |
>>the herd the package belongs to. If the project does not want it, then |
| 8 |
>>they can add "SUNRISE" to Keywords (in bugzilla). The Sunrise project |
| 9 |
>>then has permission to do with the package as they see fit. At *this* |
| 10 |
>>point, you could use "InOverlay", since it would be pretty obvious which |
| 11 |
>>overlay it means. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>>The real root of the problem is that packages that were once assigned to |
| 14 |
>>teams/projects are now being assigned into a generic dumping ground and |
| 15 |
>>being forgotten. You're trying to resolve this problem by moving them |
| 16 |
>>to another dumping ground, which I completely disagree with. A better |
| 17 |
>>solution would be to revert the broken behavior, and start assigning |
| 18 |
>>packages back to the projects, as it used to be done. Let the project |
| 19 |
>>decide if they want the package or not. If they don't, then they can |
| 20 |
>>simply add a single keyword and Sunrise can have at it. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>>This pleases everyone, as packages can be maintained in Sunrise, and the |
| 23 |
>>projects still get to decide about packages that would likely affect |
| 24 |
>>them. It changes the project to an opt-in project, rather than having |
| 25 |
>>to track down things and opt-out. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Except there is a flaw in your idea. As I see it, nothing prevents the |
| 29 |
> developers of Project Sunrise from joining each and every team |
| 30 |
> currently in existance and start marking enhancement requests |
| 31 |
> "SUNRISE", regardless of the general opinion of the team/project. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I would presume if the team is against that the hypothetical developer |
| 34 |
would find him(her)self in a sticky situation and perhaps even get |
| 35 |
kicked off of the team(s) in question. Some teams actually talk to each |
| 36 |
other, have policy, etc. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> I am not in favor of an opt-in/opt-out system. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Regards, |
| 42 |
> Brix |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives