Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:16:12
Message-Id: 52D02AD2.1070907@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS by Igor
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA256
3
4 On 10/01/14 11:48 AM, Igor wrote:
5 > Hello All,
6 >
7 > Thank you for all our feedback!
8 >
9 > It's very good that we have all many different views on the same
10 > subject. The nature designed us in a way that some part of us is to
11 > survive in almost any situation. If everyone thought the same they
12 > would make the same decisions and the probability of survival would
13 > decrease. So it's all very natural and I didn't expect it going
14 > easy.
15 >
16 > In project like that I can't rush to programming it without
17 > everyone's approval. This part of the project should have been
18 > implemented with the first portage version by it's creator. But as
19 > I'm not this person I'll need the expertise of the whole
20 > community.
21 >
22 >
23 > Let's agree on following - I'll design the system in details on
24 > paper. When it's ready (~ 1.5 months) I'll get back here and share
25 > the details.
26 >
27 > Then we all review it again everyone could contribute it's own
28 > view and part and help to avoid some design problems if there are.
29 >
30 > And then when the final version is ready and there is support and
31 > understanding of everyone and everyone says YES and sees that
32 > system could be helpful - I'll get in running in ~ 1.5 years alone
33 > or if I find some help - faster. I would anyway need this design
34 > to effectively program the soft. It's the first step, no matter if
35 > there is the second.
36 >
37 > Do we have an agreement on this one from everyone of the list?
38 >
39 > Please vote.
40 >
41
42
43 I think it's great you are looking for (developer) community feedback,
44 but it probably should be made clear that unless this project is going
45 to go through official channels (ie, GLEP), it will be an independent
46 project. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but it sounds
47 like there are some assumptions that the design or implementation will
48 just automatically be integrated.
49
50 At this point, it doesn't sound like this project would be anywhere
51 near ready to go through official channels, so your best bet would
52 probably be to continue working on it as an independent project. And
53 as such, "agreement from everyone" really has no meaning or value in
54 this context.
55
56 Good luck!
57 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
58 Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
59
60 iF4EAREIAAYFAlLQKtIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCREgD+PUTaIF56RdLjFt64Xx8HraZJ
61 qxHdYKfhY4eGlrVcYssA/jsbCruhMgwvMdoJVqKKWuTlzpkVUCjodYtWU0RH/mxw
62 =gY62
63 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----