Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

[Patrick Lauer]

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:14 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> Since when was overlays.gentoo.org supposed to even be a service to our
> users?  As I understand it, the goal was to ease development, not to
> provide an easy method for half-working ebuilds to make it to our user's
> machines.

What's the point of development if not to help users? 
Everything we do should be done to help users (and worst case we help
that small group of users that are devs). 

> > > This means it *CANNOT* be left up to a small group of developers to
> > > decide without any discussion on the matter.
> > So now we're a democracy where everything needs to be voted upon?
>
> Anything this abhorrently stupid doesn't need a vote.
Bullshit.
If you need to resort to insults you failed to show on a technical level
why it is bad.

>  It should be cast
> out on its complete lack of merit, alone.  Also, at no point did I ever
> ask for a vote.  Don't put words in my mouth and I'll try to pretend
> like I care what you say, OK?
So now you're El Cheffe? 

And please, stop sounding like my father. 


> > *sigh*
> > Let's leave that debate for another day ...
>
> You brought it up, not I.  Feel free to debate it with yourself until
> you're blue in the face.
I debated it for about 27 seconds, seems quite obvious now. Thanks for
the hint.

> > > > Yes, now it is easier to check out the ebuilds. More users ==> better
> > > > testing.
> > >
> > > Except that now the developer has to do much more work to get the same
> > > information, making it even less likely that he'll bother to pick up one
> > > of these maintainer-wanted bugs.
> > s/the developer/I/
>
> You're right... I had that wrong.
>
> s/the developer/the developers/
>
> After all, there have been quite a number of people agreeing with me.

That's a non sequitur.
There's also quite a number of people agreeing with me, but that doesn't
make any point of view better or more thruthful. So either we try to
discuss in the hope of finding a compromise or we do a headcount and do
something stupid. I'd prefer a discussion, but if you just want to HULK
SMASH SUNRISE I won't stop you.

> > there are some devs that would prefer this overlay environment.
> > Please don't push your personal preferences as The Right Way (tm)
>
> Ehh.  Were you an ebuild developer, your opinion might actually count
> for something when it comes to an ebuild development discussion.  By the
> way, where's the GWN this week?
Ulrich is MIA, nothing I can change. He does that from time to time.

> I'm glad your faith in them is so high.  My faith in *any* group this
> small having the ability to watch over a large number of outside
> contributors simply isn't there.
Let it grow. Slowly. 
Either it stands on its own or it dies from lack of interest.

> > That doesn't stop me from giving out access to my server to anyone who
> > has a good reason ... like the Gentoo/HURD repository or the Java
> > overlay.
> Well, we thank you for your immense self-sacrifice.  What this has to do
> with the topic at hand, I have no idea.
Well ... think about it. It's kinda obvious once you grok it.


> > Just don't kill an idea before it is even tested ...
> Why not?  What reason is there to stop me from aborting this brain-dead
> monstrosity before it claims a single user casualty, let alone our
> reputation?  I would have thought that your involvement in "PR" would
> have you thinking better.  A reputation is something that takes years to
> establish, and seconds to demolish.  You, of all people, should know
> that.
Yes. But killing an idea like this seems almost as damaging to me.

There's a group of devs thinking "Hey, how can we make things better?".
They come up with a few ideas, throw away those that are just not
feasible. Then they have one idea that looks useful, they try to
implement it. So either you convince those people (with whom I am only
tangentially involved) that it is a bad idea or you let them do their
thing.

I think what is more damaging to the reputation of Gentoo is the
incessant discussion of ideas before they are even tried, killing many
good things before they even have a chance on a technical level. 

> Yes, we are *so* lagged behind everyone else.  Where do you come up with
> these "facts" anyway?  I'd like to visit this mythical land.
Like, gcc 4 ? Gentoo is lagging behind most others (because our QA has grown from non-existant to really really good)

Sidenote: I don't mind that at all. But I see a split here ... one group going the debian route of making everything really really stable.
And the other group that doesn't mind mild b0rkage, but wants to be on
the bleeding edge.

Those two populations will be hard to reconcile. Give the second group a
sandbox and the first group can do their thing much easier ...
 
> > Where you see a problem I see potential: More well-tested ebuilds,
> > recruiting potential developers ... if you don't want that you're an
> > elitist bastard. ;-)
>
> Aww, how sweet.  We've started the name calling.

Don't act that surprised, it looks fake. I'd appreciate it if we could
discuss things rationally, without your oh-so-funny sarcastic remarks
and snipes at me.

> I'm sorry, but having a general dumping ground for all of the crap that
> nobody found useful enough to actually include into Gentoo doesn't sound
> like the paradise that you're making it out to be.  Luckily, I'm finding
> that I'm not alone in this, and that quite a few developers are backing
> me on this one.  We're not blind to the problems with this project in
> its implementation, management, and intended goals.  Perhaps you should
> open your eyes and seriously look at what you're pushing as a solution?
Now ... funny thing ... I'm only morally supporting this idea. I'm not actually involved any more than trying to discuss it.
I like the idea, now we should try to find a working implementation. 

> Misdirection at its finest.  So tell me, where do I learn this valuable
> skill of completely avoiding the truth and pretending to be blind to
> facts.  It sure must come in handy.
I'm sorry, I'm out of sarcastic remarks. I'll have to pass on that one.
Bummer.


> > 2) low-quality? I might mention that I'm hosting some overlays that have
> > non-gentoo contributors (*gasp!*)
>
> Sure.  Overlays that are run by Gentoo developers with a specific
> project in mind, where the project is also the maintainers of the
> similar packages in the tree, are intimately familiar with the packages,
> and are also responsible for all the bugs regarding them.  Did you have
> a point, other than to help reiterate what I have said over and over
> again?  You're starting to help my case as much as Jakub.
Hehe. You do realize that jakub does not agree with your interpretation
of reality as far as I can tell? So, considering that it's becoming
really nonsensical. 

> > Why are they hosted on my server? Because the contributors are not (yet)
> > gentoo devs, but provide good to excellent input to the projects. So now
> > you tell me that I'm doing wrong in helping Gentoo development? These
> > people can't contribute to other gentoo-hosted projects, so it is easier
> > to move the repositories to a more liberal server.
>
> No.  They're on your server because we had no facility for them to be
> placed on our infrastructure.  They could all easily be moved now and
> would be well within the parameters for the overlays project.
As it happened with planet. Why do I have to have a working
proof-of-concept before anyone listens to me? :-)
That's just a silly redirection step that annoys all involved. 

>  However,
> project sunshine flies directly in the face of those parameters, and
> should be killed before it is allowed to harm Gentoo.
s/killed/modified/
It's called diplomacy, it's the thing you usually do instead of bombing
countries back into the stone age.

> > > I seriously question your motives towards the Gentoo project.
> > Good. Question them. I'm still doing what I can to help ... doing such silly things as finding new servers for Infra and writing articles for the GWN.
>
> Really?  Which servers?  Which articles?
Bug number 108379, just a smallish Opteron on an unmetered 100Mbit connection. You do the math on that one :-)

And articles ... well ... I've had at least one bit of my prose in
almost all GWNs since November 2004. Together with Ulrich I've been the
only really regular contributor. 

But I don't see how _that_ relates to the discussion. 

> > If that isn't good enough ... well ... who cares. You invest as much as
> > I do in your own server for Gentoo usage and I'll not question _your_
> > motives.
> Like the hardware I've donated on multiple occasions?
Good to hear. Don't turn it into a pissing contest, I'm just a poor
student, so you can outspend me any day of the week.

>   Or the hours and
> hours I spend working on Gentoo's actual products?  How about the hours
> spent running the Gentoo Store, that actually brings in money for
> Gentoo?
Good.

> Spending a few dollars doesn't make you anything more than a monetary
> contributor.  It doesn't buy you any respect.  It doesn't buy you
> anything.
Except that all of Gentoo Infra is donated. Are you saying that we don't
need any of these donations? Hey, tell OSU that we don't need their
support. 

> How about instead actually answering the issues that have been
> presented?
You're going to kill it anyway, so why bother?

> How exactly is it easier to manage a large number of ebuilds versus a
> small number?
It is easier to manage one large overlay than managing 35 small overlays.
Communication overhead, duplication of effort, ...

> Quit averting the issues when they are brought up.
I'm not.

> > You know ... users. Those people that are not devs. Some of us try to
> > give them the best experience we can, and if there is something like an
> > overlay that even the more n00bish users can use we should try to
> > provide it.
>
> Huh?  You mean the ones that expect us, as developers, to have their
> best interests in mind and to not allow poor-quality and potentially
> hazardous ebuilds to hit their machines?  The same ones that trust us
> with the stability of their machines?  The same ones that choose Gentoo
> because we're the best, not because we have some dumping ground of
> barely-wanted packages?  Yeah, those users...
You might want to differentiate between user groups ... some want breakage. 
Must be some special masochism, but they are using CFLAGS and overlays that 
are really whacky. But if that's what they want to do I'm not going to stop them. 
I'll try to convinve them that what they do is not right, their problem
if they don't listen.

Others want stability. For those everything moves too fast. So decide,
which group do you want? Ricers or debianites? I'll take both. A nice
stable tree for one group, one adequately labelled experimental
playground for the others.


> > > > And again, one svn repo vs. 113 hard-to-find bugs ...
> > > Amazing how you pull such numbers out of thin air.
> > It's a special talent. 47 <-- just for you
> Ahh, so you're lying.  Thanks for pointing that out.  It definitely
> helps.
Eh? What about the 47 is a lie? You're doubting the 47? 

> > >  Which 113 bugs are you talking about, exactly?
> > Try to find the relevant files in the three bugs jakub posted.
> > Now try that for multiple packages ... Most users won't need to harvest
> > 113 bugs, but I'd prefer a "svn up". It's just so much saner and less
> > work that it is hard for me to see how bugzilla even makes sense.
> So you don't have a list of 113 bugs, but instead go on to speak of your
> preference to svn up.
What jakub said.

> Now, I'm going to make this plain and simple.  This is you avoiding the
> question that was presented to you.
No, it is you doing a ciaranm on me by trying to force me to discuss tangential issues, wrap me in two layers of confusion and then you do what you wanted to do from the beginning anyway.

> > Not everyone wants to spend 20h a week on Gentoo. Some people just want
> > to maintain their personal app for Gentoo. In some cases we already have
> > proxy-maintainers, so I don't see why we should not try to find more
> > motivated smart users to help.
>
> Great.  Why do they need an overlay to do their job?  The funny thing is
> that nobody has answered this question.  All that anyone has done is
> given some vague references or promises about how it'll be "better"
> having an overlay with nothing to back it up.
I think it was jokey who pasted an email from a user who just wanted to
maintain his two packages without the full become-a-dev stuff, including
reading huge flamewars on mailinglists and other non-productive issues. 

>  However, I've been able
> to show quite a few ways in which this overlay will hurt Gentoo.  There
> have also been comments from other developers, and users, that have been
> all but ignored.  I guess it is hard to respond to something when you
> have no way to refute it, but I digress.
*shrug*
Then try to _modify_ it. There's a large group of users (including devs)
that would appreciate such an overlay. I guess it's hard to accept
dissenting opinions when you are not prepared to discuss, but I digress
too. Those are not the users we want *jedi mind trick* I guess.

> > >   Also, just because I trust one person, doesn't mean I trust
> > > someone that you trust.  Trust is not implicit, it is earned.
> > That's why most Gentoo devs can have an account on my server. Except
> > those that have told me directly that they don't like me :-)
>
> Again, you decide to point out something that is only somewhat related
> and try to use it as a proving point for your position, when it really
> bares no real relevance.
It does.
>  What exactly does trusting developers, which
> have been members of the community for some time and have proven
> themselves, have to do with trusting a random set of users?
I also trust a mostly random subset of users. And I haven't had any
problems yet. Au contraire, these users have been some of the most
helpful and polite I've met. Some devs could learn a lot from them -
humility, politeness, all that stuff.

> I don't consider all users untrustworthy.  Never once have I said that.
> This is another attempt to try to put words into my mouth so that you
> can hit home your own ideas, which aren't even relevant, since I didn't
> *say* what you're responding to.  Remember what I said, and that you
> agreed to.  Trust is earned.
No, strangers are friends you haven't met. Maybe I'm showing my anarchistic/liberal side again, but I tend to trust people until they screw up.
And the amazing part is that people rarely screw up if you are nice to
them and help them.

> > If someone wanted to exploit boxen he'd use a much simpler attack
> > vector ... our rsync mirrors are wide open. No need to secure the little
> > window over there when the front door is open ...
>
> Really?  I'd like you to give me root on rsync.gentoo.org, then.  What's
> that?  You can't?  What a wonder!
See my other email. No need to break the 10in metal plate when you can drive a truck trough the brick wall on the side...

> > Instead of trying to kill this idea you should try to get it modified
> > into something we all can agree on.
>
> I tried that.  I ended up receiving vague references about how the
> current plan will make things "better" and how nothing needs to change.
> Either that or the issues were simply ignored.  That to me says that the
> team involved isn't interested in compromise.  That only leaves one
> course of action for me, and that is to work to kill the project.
Hmmm. Interesting.
So I guess it's all a big misunderstanding and we should start this
discussion from scratch. Looks like people talked past each other and
then got all personal instead of communicating.


Patrick 
-- 
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move