Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: separate /usr preparation vote

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote:
> On 08/18/2013 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Anthony G. Basile
>> <basile@××××××××××××××.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> ditto.  I want this debated in the community, ie, I want to hear the
>>> community say "all the preperation for dropping support ... are
>>> complete".
>>
>> The community will never say that, just like no community ever said
>> "hey, we need a source-based linux distro!"
>
> There may be valid objects which will be silenced by the rush.  I'd like to
> hear from people whom this will directly affect, like Chainsaw.

Then ping him.

I'd love to hear objections as well - but objections to the proposal
itself, not objections to considering it.

> In other words, let's give the community a chance to bring forward concerns.

The only way to get people to bring forward concerns is to ask them.
Nobody is going to take action unless a decision is on the agenda.
Otherwise, why bother?

> We are rushing this.  People need time to think of the consequences.  So a
> valid reason for waiting is that I (and probably others) haven't had the
> time to think through the consequences.  We have a 6 month window, why is it
> so important that this be done now?

This has been on the agenda for over a year, and the subject of three
council meetings and three votes in that timespan.

Just what time do we think we'll have in the next six months that we
didn't have in the last year?

By all means identify reasons that we're not ready to go, and get them
out on the table so that they can be resolved in the next six months.
My concern is that we'll spend the next six months doing nothing, and
THEN we'll start raising objections.

> If this had been done in 2008, my entire teaching lab would have been
> broken.

I've got news for you - there are hundreds of others systems that will
also be broken if the admins don't take action.  That will apply in
2008, 2013, or 2038.  We just agreed that the change is happening in
the next six months.  We agreed that lots of systems are going to
break if somebody doesn't do something to prevent it.  So, now the
goal is to take action to help people to prepare.

If your objection is a lack of docs, then point out what is missing in
a bug.  If your objection is a lack of news, then log a bug asking for
a news item.

If your only objection is that you need time to think about it, well,
we have 3.5 weeks before the next Council meeting, so think about
it...  I'm sure somebody will log an objection on the eve of the
meeting, so we might as well have it on the agenda so that we're not
delaying action to the eve of the meeting after that.

I already stated my perspective.  If somebody doesn't log an actual
reason to hold things up, my inclination is to give an immediate
all-clear to WONTFIX anything that is a bug today or which pertains to
a package that wasn't stable in August 2012 (at the maintainer's
discretion).  If somebody can give me a good reason for moving a
package from / to /usr then I'll be fine with allowing them to do so
as long as the first such major change includes a news item and 30
days notice.

It won't surprise me if we still end up on a six month schedule, but
I'd like it to be because we spend the next six months preparing for a
good transition, and not because we've spent six months avoiding the
issue.

I plan to also contribute by looking for other potential blockers
(I've already logged one, which I have to congratulate the docs team
for addressing in a matter of hours).

Rich