| 1 |
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:03:37 +0100 Ed W <lists@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
| As an "outsider" reading that summary the message *I* read is that |
| 3 |
| there is some strain over fitting the development model into |
| 4 |
| "stable", "~", and "package.mask". I think I see people basically |
| 5 |
| saying that they have differing views over what qualifies for each |
| 6 |
| level? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The system basically works. The problems are: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
* It's not always used correctly. |
| 11 |
* It's not entirely understood by some users. |
| 12 |
* Some users think it should be easier to unmask a group of related |
| 13 |
packages. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The third one's invalid, they just need to learn how to use sed... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
| Also, as someone who has submitted a few patches and some ebuilds and |
| 18 |
| then seen nothing happen to them and my offers to act as maintainer |
| 19 |
| have gone unresponded I also wonder if there is some way to make |
| 20 |
| better use of casual contributors like me? (I'm not bitter, it's just |
| 21 |
| that I feel I could contribute more, but don't know how to?) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The problem is... Getting someone ready to be able to commit to the |
| 24 |
main tree is expensive in terms of existing developer time. The |
| 25 |
solution isn't lowering the standards for commit access, because that |
| 26 |
just leads to even more wasted developer time. There's the two tier |
| 27 |
system that gets proposed every now and again, but that would a) |
| 28 |
require svn rather than cvs and b) require that certain people who |
| 29 |
currently have main tree access be moved to branch access only. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
A bigger tree is all well and good, but the tree we have right now is |
| 32 |
only half maintained... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 36 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 37 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives