Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] New project: GURU [Gentoo User Repository, Unreviewed]
Mon, 04 Feb 2019 13:48:37
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:28:28 +0100
Michał Górny <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 11:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 20:28:49 +0100
> > Michał Górny <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > ---
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > What is the difference with sunrise ?
> The difference, as noted in the mail, is that it doesn't rely
> on developers having time to review ebuilds. Therefore, it is less
> likely to die because of developers lacking time to review stuff.
Then I fear you will see the same pitfalls, and it already started: I
recall sunrise haters being very strongly against the idea because,
TBH, our sandboxing mechanism isn't a real sandbox. It may have
improved, but I doubt it's up to the point that we can safely run
untrusted code there.
> > One of the advantages of sunrise is that it had 2 repos: One
> > unreviewed, without Gentoo official name and big fat warnings, one
> > reviewed by devs more widely available.
> First of all, they weren't really two repos -- they were more like
> private and public branches which were made into two repos due to
> technical limitations. With the public branch getting all the commits
> from private branch merged.
Yeah, that's the same idea but modernized.
> Secondly, both branches were reviewed. The difference is that people
> were supposed to ask for (IRC) review before committing to the first
> branch, and only developers were allowed to merge to the second
That's also the same idea to me.
> Thirdly, I have no clue what 'Gentoo official name' is in this
> contexts and I certainly don't recall big fat warnings. The only
> difference was that the public repo was advertised publicly while the
> former was intended for development.
It was officially strongly discouraged to use the non dev-merged
branch. That is what I would call a big fat warning.
Don't get me wrong: I like the idea. Just making sure not to repeat past