| 1 |
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 12:46 +0100, Andres Loeh wrote: |
| 2 |
> > If the overlay's changelog is included on o.g.o's front-page, and the |
| 3 |
> > wiki / GuideXML site is publically readable, but we just disallow |
| 4 |
> > anonymous access to the overlay itself (only if requested, this |
| 5 |
> > wouldn't be the default setup) ... how would that work for you? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It would work, of course, and it would help prevent certain complaints, |
| 8 |
> but it's not absolutely necessary. If "on request" is chosen, it's also |
| 9 |
> important that read access can be given by us without any delay, i.e., |
| 10 |
> without going through any formal process. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
See, I have no problem with this. The operation of the overlay *should* |
| 13 |
lie completely with the overlay owners. You *should* be able to add |
| 14 |
*anyone* that you feel is worth adding to read *or* write access, with |
| 15 |
no further process. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay |
| 18 |
can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo |
| 19 |
infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that |
| 20 |
are not in the overlay. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If this single policy were in place, then I would fully support |
| 23 |
overlays.gentoo.org being created. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
My main point is I don't want one of my tree packages to break because |
| 26 |
some ricer told some n00b to use some crazy ebuild from some random |
| 27 |
overlay that isn't really fit for the general masses. If we take at |
| 28 |
least *some* measures to prevent this, then I'm OK with it. Allowing a |
| 29 |
free-for-all in the overlays is not acceptable. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 33 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 34 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 35 |
Games - Developer |
| 36 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives