| 1 |
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:28:28 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 11:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 20:28:49 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > --- |
| 9 |
> > > What do you think? |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > What is the difference with sunrise ? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The difference, as noted in the mail, is that it doesn't rely |
| 15 |
> on developers having time to review ebuilds. Therefore, it is less |
| 16 |
> likely to die because of developers lacking time to review stuff. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Then I fear you will see the same pitfalls, and it already started: I |
| 20 |
recall sunrise haters being very strongly against the idea because, |
| 21 |
TBH, our sandboxing mechanism isn't a real sandbox. It may have |
| 22 |
improved, but I doubt it's up to the point that we can safely run |
| 23 |
untrusted code there. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> > One of the advantages of sunrise is that it had 2 repos: One |
| 28 |
> > unreviewed, without Gentoo official name and big fat warnings, one |
| 29 |
> > reviewed by devs more widely available. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> No. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> First of all, they weren't really two repos -- they were more like |
| 34 |
> private and public branches which were made into two repos due to |
| 35 |
> technical limitations. With the public branch getting all the commits |
| 36 |
> from private branch merged. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Yeah, that's the same idea but modernized. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> Secondly, both branches were reviewed. The difference is that people |
| 43 |
> were supposed to ask for (IRC) review before committing to the first |
| 44 |
> branch, and only developers were allowed to merge to the second |
| 45 |
> branch. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
That's also the same idea to me. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> Thirdly, I have no clue what 'Gentoo official name' is in this |
| 50 |
> contexts and I certainly don't recall big fat warnings. The only |
| 51 |
> difference was that the public repo was advertised publicly while the |
| 52 |
> former was intended for development. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
It was officially strongly discouraged to use the non dev-merged |
| 55 |
branch. That is what I would call a big fat warning. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Don't get me wrong: I like the idea. Just making sure not to repeat past |
| 60 |
mistakes. |
Archives