Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making the developer community more open

[Dan Meltzer]

On 3/23/06, Daniel Goller <morfic@g.o> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:15 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > Asking developers to "proxy" takes almost as much time as it does to
> > ask them to maintain a package by themselves.
>
> wrong
>
> >  The developer is
> > directly responsible for anything he commits, so he will have to still
> > test the ebuild, still test any revisions, and still follow the
> > package to make sure there are no problems.  The writing the ebuild
> > part of the process is not that much of the commitment, I don't see
> > the point.
> >
>
> we are not just talking about new ebuilds/bumps
> having someone do all the work and having to only verify the end results
> of the users work is a big help, instead of having to look into the
> problem, checking if a fix exists elsewhere, or digging through the
> source yourself, you verify the fix solves the problem and does only
> that.
>
> and everyone wins

So it sounds like you are asking them to do everything developers do,

why not just make them be developers?
>
> > On 3/22/06, Thomas Cort <linuxgeek@×××××.com> wrote:
> > > > > A developer could then take these ebuilds, make sure they
> > > > > don't do anything malicious, or break QA, or whatever, and act as the
> > > > > bridge between the portage tree and the users actually working on the
> > > > > ebuild and keeping things up to date and working.
> > >
> > > > The easiest way to handle "contrib" as far as that "big warning" is to
> > > > make it a separate tree.  That way, folks who want the flexibility get
> > > > it, but those who prefer not to "risk it", don't  have to worry about it.
> > > > As well, contribs becomes another fertile developer recruitment ground.
> > >
> > > Why would the packages need a "big warning"/overlay/eclass if they
> > > were checked by a developer to make sure they "don't do anything
> > > malicious, or break QA, or whatever"? There are many user contributed
> > > ebuilds that have made their way into portage after being reviewed by
> > > devs that don't have any such warnings.
> > >
> > > I don't think creating a "contrib" overlay as an official part of
> > > Gentoo would be a good idea because making it an official Gentoo
> > > project conveys a certain level of quality. If the quality is there,
> > > then why not add the ebuilds to portage in the first place? If the
> > > quality isn't there, then you will have a lot of unhappy users
> > > complaining that an official Gentoo overlay broke their system.
> > >
> > > Having a non-Gentoo sponsored contrib overlay wouldn't be a good idea
> > > either IMO because the contributors wouldn't be contributing to
> > > Gentoo, and they wouldn't be interacting as much with the Gentoo
> > > developer community. Sure they would learn a lot of the skills
> > > required to be a Gentoo developer, but they wouldn't be increasing the
> > > value of anything in portage (unless they got a proxy to commit some
> > > of their work to portage). Also, there are many overlays out there
> > > already. Adding another one won't help with "making the developer
> > > community more open". Additionally, I don't personally know of a lot
> > > of people who actually use third party overlays except to get an
> > > ebuild for a particular package they want or to beta test ebuilds.
> > >
> > > -Thomas
> > >
> > > --
> > > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBEIx8o/aM9DdBw91cRAmVoAKC8JtAm2vvWGBG2YMzpI+EGu8RFJwCeOMll
> lCv/CsLde+6MbDHgX8EuKhU=
> =w+ap
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list