Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] rsync: add key refresh retry (bug 649276)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 18:47:10
Message-Id: 20180401184702.GJ24240@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] rsync: add key refresh retry (bug 649276) by "Michał Górny"
1 On 01-04-2018 20:29:59 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > > > This essentially looks like ~700 lines of code to try to workaround
3 > > > broken networking. I would rather try to do that using 5 lines of code
4 > > > but that's just me, and my programs aren't enterprise quality. I just
5 > > > hope it actually solves as many problems as it's going to introduce.
6 > >
7 > > The vast majority of this code is generic and reusable, and I do intend
8 > > to reuse it. For example, the executor support will be an essential
9 > > piece for the asyncio.AbstractEventLoop for bug 649588.
10 >
11 > Sure it is and sure you will. But tell me: who is going to maintain it
12 > all? Because as far as I can see, we're still dealing with a bus factor
13 > of one and all you're doing is making it worse. More code, more
14 > complexity, more creeping featurism and hacks.
15
16 Well, well, well. This could be said about a lot of code, including
17 your own.
18
19 > Last time you went away, you left us with a horribly unmaintainable
20 > package manager full of complexity, hacks and creeping featurism
21 > and a Portage team whose members had barely any knowledge of the code.
22 > Just when things started moving again, you came back and we're back to
23 > square one.
24
25 I don't see why this has to be made personal. In the olde days people
26 just pushed whatever they needed, now it's reviewed and acked, so how
27 can it be back to square one?
28
29 > Today Portage once again is a one-developer project, full of more
30 > complexity, more hacks and more creeping featurism. And we once again
31 > have a bus factor of one -- one developer who apparently knows
32 > everything, does everything and tries to be nice to everyone, except he
33 > really ignores others, makes a lot of empty promises and consistently
34 > makes the health of the project go from bad to worse.
35
36 Errr, didn't you recently start your own fork with creeping featurism of
37 its own because mainline was/is too slow?
38
39 > So, please tell me: what happens when you leave again? How have you used
40 > your time in the project? What have you done to make sure that
41 > the project stays alive without you? Because as far as I can see, adding
42 > few thousand of lines of practically unreviewed code every month does
43 > not help with that.
44
45 Why is this Zac's problem specifically? Isn't this a general problem of
46 Gentoo? And isn't your attitude contributing in a large factor to
47 the bus-factor getting down from 1 to 0?
48
49 > I forked Portage because I didn't want to fight with you. When I forked
50 > it, I declared that I will merge mainline changes regularly for
51 > the benefit of my users. But after a week, I really start feeling like
52 > that's going to be a really bad idea. Like it's time to forget about
53 > mainline Portage as a completely dead end, and go our separate ways.
54
55 So you fork. Like many forks, that is because people feel that it isn't
56 going "their way". Yay. That doesn't make you "right".
57
58 > I'm seriously worried about the future of Gentoo. I'd really appreciate
59 > if you started focusing on that as well. I get that all this stuff looks
60 > cool on paper but few months or years from now, someone will curse
61 > 'whoever wrote that code' while trying to fix some nasty bug. Or get
62 > things moving forward. Or implement EAPI 8.
63
64 Perhaps it's time to look into the mirror.
65
66 Thanks,
67 Fabian
68
69 --
70 Fabian Groffen
71 Gentoo on a different level

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature