| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:03:37 +0100 Ed W <lists@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>| As an "outsider" reading that summary the message *I* read is that |
| 5 |
>| there is some strain over fitting the development model into |
| 6 |
>| "stable", "~", and "package.mask". I think I see people basically |
| 7 |
>| saying that they have differing views over what qualifies for each |
| 8 |
>| level? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>The system basically works. The problems are: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>* It's not always used correctly. |
| 13 |
>* It's not entirely understood by some users. |
| 14 |
>* Some users think it should be easier to unmask a group of related |
| 15 |
>packages. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Might there be an option 4 which is that a slightly different system |
| 20 |
might stop everyone bitching over the current one and hence avoid |
| 21 |
wasting some time? Nope, no idea what that would be, but the thought |
| 22 |
does occur when you see some time being wasted on trivial issues... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
>| Also, as someone who has submitted a few patches and some ebuilds and |
| 26 |
>| then seen nothing happen to them and my offers to act as maintainer |
| 27 |
>| have gone unresponded I also wonder if there is some way to make |
| 28 |
>| better use of casual contributors like me? (I'm not bitter, it's just |
| 29 |
>| that I feel I could contribute more, but don't know how to?) |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
>The problem is... Getting someone ready to be able to commit to the |
| 32 |
>main tree is expensive in terms of existing developer time. The |
| 33 |
>solution isn't lowering the standards for commit access, because that |
| 34 |
>just leads to even more wasted developer time. There's the two tier |
| 35 |
>system that gets proposed every now and again, but that would a) |
| 36 |
>require svn rather than cvs and b) require that certain people who |
| 37 |
>currently have main tree access be moved to branch access only. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
>A bigger tree is all well and good, but the tree we have right now is |
| 40 |
>only half maintained... |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Is there any possibility that easier low quality contribution makes the |
| 45 |
high quality contributions easier? |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Look at wikipedia - it's amazing that such high quality work (in |
| 48 |
general) can come from lightly peer review material with low barriers to |
| 49 |
entry. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Clearly not an appropriate model here, but I can't help wondering if |
| 52 |
there is not another way... |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I did read the FAQ here and I take your point though: |
| 55 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm/docs/mw-faq/maintainer.txt |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Thanks for listening |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Ed W |
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives