Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: sunrise@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:03:56
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project by "Michał Górny"
1 Michał Górny schrieb:
2 > Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to
3 > announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it?
4 > If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors
5 > and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo
6 > via proxy-maint?
8 I agree that the Sunrise repository should be removed from
9 repositories.xml. I don't know if there is any way of informing users
10 beforehand of this change happening. If not, then a grace period is
11 probably pointless.
13 Moving ebuilds to proxy-maint and ::gentoo is complicated by the fact
14 that there is no concept of maintainer in sunrise. (This is also why we
15 were stricter than the portage tree, because the original committer
16 might not be around when the next person would have to make changes.)
17 As every package in sunrise has an associated maintainer-wanted bug, it
18 would be good to post a message to each such bug to encourage interested
19 users to contact proxy-maint.
21 > I should point out that Sunrise has lost a lot of popularity to
22 > proxy-maint, then also to GitHub pull requests (and the two combined).
23 > The developers involved with those provide quite a good review
24 > workflow, with the extra advantage of getting packages straight
25 > into ::gentoo. I don't know how many users would be interested
26 > in keeping them in ::sunrise if they could have them straight
27 > in ::gentoo with similar (if not less...) effort.
28 >
29 > Your thoughts?
31 I do think there is value in having a user repository. There are
32 different ways to manage it: curated, non-curated, only trusted users
33 get access, everybody gets access, etc. Sunrise is on one end of the
34 spectrum and bgo-overlay probably on the other. The Sunrise approach
35 ultimately did not scale and hinged on developers doing most of the work
36 that proxy-maint would do but ending up in a much less visible repository.
38 Maybe an approach similar to what grobian initially suggested for the
39 portage tree git migration[0] would be a good idea: Have individual
40 user-managed repositories for packages, and an automated script that
41 merges them. But of course someone needs to step up and make it happen.
43 > [1]:
45 Until further steps are decided, I'll add a statement that the project
46 is inactive and refer people to proxy-maintainers.
49 Best regards,
50 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
52 [0]


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>