| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So far the only difference between this and doing a query on b.g.o for |
| 7 |
> maintainer-wanted is that it's on mailing list. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Which (as a side note), increase the flow of communication between |
| 10 |
developers and users, giving an alternative bugzilla. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> Here it comes the trick or 'trap' ;-) |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> The user _has_ to compromise to take care of those previous commented |
| 16 |
>> three points that some of us might be afraid of, besides of giving us a |
| 17 |
>> centralized way of keeping informed about new ebuilds. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> _Has_ to? How do we enforce that? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Nobody forces anybody here to do anything. In the same way we (by |
| 23 |
ourselves) compromise as developer to cooperate with Gentoo , we also |
| 24 |
need the same degree of compromise from the users. That simple. This is |
| 25 |
a project for people who wants to cooperate under these requirements. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The users will need to read the guidelines of the project (when posted), |
| 28 |
and all these points would be explained as better as possible, so he/she |
| 29 |
might know what kind of work they need to do inside the proxy project. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> So basically, the user does all the work in exchange for the ebuild |
| 32 |
> being in portage. Once it's in they disappear off the face of the |
| 33 |
> earth. I still don't see how this is any different than the status quo. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Please (re^10e)-read the point 4. (the most important one by the way) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
>> This evidently brings some developers responsibilities too, we will need |
| 39 |
>> to review, and test the ebuilds. we sometimes will have to check with |
| 40 |
>> upstream, and comment on the ebuild, or fixing some details. But it |
| 41 |
>> should be a far minimimal effort than the developer taking care of the |
| 42 |
>> package(s) by his own, in the better of the cases, he even shouldn't do |
| 43 |
>> anything but to test, review and commit, from there on, the ebuild will |
| 44 |
>> be under the standard procedures of maintenance (arch testing to |
| 45 |
>> stabilize, bug reports to notify problems, etc). The developer should |
| 46 |
>> also take care of any internal developer communication if needed. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Right, just like now. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Not for those packages we fully maintain. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> I don't think it's necessary to formalize it. If you find a user who |
| 54 |
> wants to help then great. Go ahead. You're free to define whatever |
| 55 |
> relationships that work for you. It doesn't have to be officially |
| 56 |
> stamped and sealed, it's just everyday social interaction. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> --de. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
It is organizing more than formalizing. I actually can see it might help |
| 62 |
to spread the word about this technique that many of us have been using |
| 63 |
for quite a time now. And even if we gain only one more user interested |
| 64 |
to help with this, i think it is worthy. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
- -- |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org" |
| 70 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 71 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 72 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
iD8DBQFEy+YAdZ42PGEF17URAkhrAKDe7BNWY1yhOJibXoNBMu4ZbJYZqwCfZ32Q |
| 75 |
2nKjQcISUdErK0jx7cVs5U0= |
| 76 |
=Y8YL |
| 77 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 78 |
-- |
| 79 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives