Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support

[Jakub Moc]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 22:03 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>> To answer Daniel's other question, about bugs.g.o ... trac on
>> overlays.g.o will have its bug tracking system disabled.  We already
>> have one bug tracking system - bugs.g.o - and that's sufficient.
>
> Umm... no?
>
> If some random developer goes out there and creates his own fork of
> catalyst in his overlay, I sure don't want to receive a *single* bug on
> it.  Ever.
>
> If you're already using Trac, you should keep the bug tracking enabled,
> so the bugs stay with the overlay.  Once something moves into the
> official tree, then it can use bugs.gentoo.org for its bug tracking.
> This means developers that don't wish to participate in the overlays are
> not forced to waste their time troubleshooting problems in these
> overlays and can focus on our *core* product, the portage tree.

Well, I don't care much, as long as:

- there's a separate Overlays product in bugzilla for this

- each such overlay has its own component under Overlay product with
default assignees set up (no, I won't check out all those overlays to
find out the maintainer, also, almost none of them uses metadata.xml)

- users are *vigorously* :P instructed to file the bugs under that
product/component and/or (?) mark them with something like [overlay-xxx]
so that I don't have to ponder who's maintaining that thing. If they
don't, the bugs end up as invalid b/c the ebuild is not in portage. Easy
enough.

While keeping those bugs in trac bug trackers seemed as a good idea to
me originally, most users are simply unable to do that anyway. We tried
w/ php overlay, didn't work much.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@g.o
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)