1 |
M. J. Everitt posted on Fri, 15 Dec 2017 01:25:38 +0000 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> 1) Gentoo isn't really interested in having a 'stable' tree or it would |
4 |
> already be happening. As such, why not cut the Gordian knot, declare |
5 |
> that this is not something that will happen [soon] and let users make |
6 |
> their own choices. The [majority of] developers already seem to have ... |
7 |
|
8 |
The (general) argument for keeping stable seems to consist of two points |
9 |
which together have always (to the present at least) tended to |
10 |
overwhelmingly tip things in favor of keeping it. Indeed, either one |
11 |
alone can do so, even when the other one is discounted for some reason |
12 |
(like some people not putting value in that point). |
13 |
|
14 |
a) The world of FLOSS isn't a zero-sum game. People tend to contribute |
15 |
where they have interest (whether it's theirs personally or that of their |
16 |
employer), and attempting to ban whatever "wasted effort" project in |
17 |
favor of what they "should" be contributing to seldom results in /that/ |
18 |
much more effort going to the "favored" project after all (and may result |
19 |
in less), because if people were interested in that they'd already be |
20 |
contributing to it, and the fact that they aren't, or aren't very much, |
21 |
tends to mean their interest is elsewhere, and they'll either go |
22 |
somewhere else or simply stop contributing as much if they can't |
23 |
contribute to what they were interested in, in the first place. |
24 |
|
25 |
By this point (again, keep in mind we're talking /general/ here, the |
26 |
apparent current exception is addressed below), stable exists because |
27 |
it's of enough interest to certain contributors that it /continues/ to |
28 |
exist, and however much people such as myself (for I'm simply not |
29 |
interested in stal^Hble) might consider it a waste of time, killing it |
30 |
would be very unlikely to result in invigorating the ~arch I'm primarily |
31 |
interested in. In fact, likely the opposite due to less people as a |
32 |
whole contributing. |
33 |
|
34 |
That's the idealistic point, now perhaps the more practical one... |
35 |
|
36 |
b) As a point of fact many gentoo sponsors, including those providing |
37 |
hosting and/or paying a few gentoo devs to actually do the gentoo work |
38 |
they'd very possibly be doing in their spare time anyway (even if it's |
39 |
just payment for the 20% aka one day a week open source community |
40 |
contribution that's a thing in the tech world), are primarily interested |
41 |
in gentoo-stable. |
42 |
|
43 |
One big and public example is Google, which uses a gentoo base for its |
44 |
ChromeOS product. I'm not privy to details, but from what I've read it |
45 |
seems they start with snapshots of gentoo stable, then stabilize them |
46 |
further, often feeding their additional patches back upstream to gentoo |
47 |
(of course as gentoo feeds stuff back upstream as well, but for some |
48 |
things, gentoo /is/ the upstream). Tho of course if they have reason to |
49 |
they can and do pick individual ~arch packages to supplement the stable |
50 |
base as well, but the point is, they're interested in /stable/. |
51 |
|
52 |
And google sponsors, directly or indirectly (some gentooers apparently |
53 |
work at unrelated google jobs), a number of gentoo devs, in addition to |
54 |
the testing and patches they feed back to us. |
55 |
|
56 |
Similarly, some of those in our mirror network, for instance, are |
57 |
commercial hosters doing it because some of their customers wanted gentoo, |
58 |
and providing that local mirror for them, but usable by the public as |
59 |
well, is a nice point of convenience to keep those customers /as/ |
60 |
customers. |
61 |
|
62 |
And that's commercial server biz, where the general rule is if it's not |
63 |
broke, don't try to "fix" it and in the process risk your view/income/etc |
64 |
stream. So a slow stable actually works well there. |
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
So while I'm personally very much an ~arch and even live-git-build on |
68 |
some sets of packages (kde-frameworks/plasma/apps, primarily, with |
69 |
occasional others) type of guy and don't /personally/ see much practical |
70 |
use for stal^Hble, I certainly see how keeping it makes gentoo bigger and |
71 |
better for all of us, including those of us that don't use it personally. |
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
> 2) Whilst there has yet another fine bike-shed emerged on the subject, I |
75 |
> have only seen one volunteer willing or capable to actually take on |
76 |
> implementation of anything that has been discussed on this thread. As |
77 |
> such, you can talk all you like .. nothing will happen until somebody |
78 |
> actually *does* something .. |
79 |
|
80 |
Given the context above, What seems to be the problem here is that the |
81 |
people that /had/ been interested in, and thus contributing to, gentoo/ |
82 |
amd64-stable, basically the (a) point folks above, seem to have moved on |
83 |
to other things, whether inside gentoo or out. |
84 |
|
85 |
But the (b) point surely remains, so we have a problem. |
86 |
|
87 |
One could argue that in that case the sponsors should sponsor amd64- |
88 |
stable folks, but it's not generally that direct, and even if it were, |
89 |
getting that worked into the sponsorship pipeline would take time. |
90 |
|
91 |
|
92 |
I don't have a solution (my reason for posting was to point out that it's |
93 |
not as simple as just dropping stable, not really to provide an answer I |
94 |
don't have), but can note that I believe there's two people now |
95 |
volunteered for it, and of course people have to be aware of it before |
96 |
they can realize their personal stake and thus interest in it, thus this |
97 |
thread... Even if not enough by itself, you gotta start somewhere, and |
98 |
there's at least the two interested, now... |
99 |
|
100 |
-- |
101 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
102 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
103 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |