| 1 |
Rich Freeman: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:08 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> That just shows that our workflow is so broken that we have to ask such |
| 5 |
>> things in a quiz. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> "Let's track him for one month and revert any major breakage quickly" is |
| 8 |
>> our answer to what the rest of the world does: review. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Well, arguably the gentoo-sunrise suggestion is more in line with this. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Sunrise does not have a proper review workflow. It's IRC-driven review |
| 15 |
and you may wait for an answer a few days and have to be lucky to catch |
| 16 |
the reviewers in right time. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I tried to fix it, but the whole concept of two repositories was just |
| 19 |
inappropriate for a git workflow. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I have a bunch of thoughts here, but I think changing the overall |
| 22 |
> model of Gentoo so that the role of a developer changes substantially |
| 23 |
> is really a separate topic. I'm not opposed to this but I don't think |
| 24 |
> we should just ignore the issue of obtaining developers in the hope |
| 25 |
> that the need for this will go away. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
It's not a separate topic. It's just a different solution to the same |
| 29 |
problem. |
| 30 |
But you have thought one step too far. I wasn't suggesting the same |
| 31 |
thing as I did in other threads. I was merely pointing out that there |
| 32 |
doesn't need to be a formal recruiting process. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Just ask yourself how people get commit access to other random |
| 35 |
opensource projects. From my experience it doesn't happen through a |
| 36 |
recruitment process. If at all it is because your pull requests have |
| 37 |
very high quality and you showed that you are in line with the project |
| 38 |
goals, so that the project owners thought it might be easier to just |
| 39 |
give you direct push access (which I still think is a mistake, but that |
| 40 |
is indeed a different topic). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
People who regularly submit good pull requests and participate in open |
| 43 |
debate don't go unnoticed. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Even if we went to a review-based workflow, we would STILL need to vet |
| 46 |
> new reviewers in some way, so we'd still have many of the same |
| 47 |
> challenges. If anything the role of a reviewer is even more difficult |
| 48 |
> to fill than a committer, since committers have the freedom to only |
| 49 |
> work on the stuff they want to work on but if we want review to |
| 50 |
> actually work we need reviewers to cover anything the committers want |
| 51 |
> to work on. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Nah. You don't assign someone to review EVERYTHING for a single person. |
| 55 |
Why would you do that? It doesn't work. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
The point is... that the line between regular contributor and "gentoo |
| 59 |
dev" doesn't matter much for many people and that means they are not |
| 60 |
really interested in taking much effort to overcome that line. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
I've been asked recently by a community member if he should bother to |
| 63 |
try to become a gentoo dev, because he heard it's a pain. |
| 64 |
Then again... regularly contributing to gentoo via bug reports is even |
| 65 |
more a pain... so he's just running yet another personal overlay. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
The fact that projects like proxy-maintainers and sunrise have to exist |
| 68 |
are proof that we are doing something wrong! I'm not discrediting any of |
| 69 |
those. They fill a gap, but the question is... why do we have that gap |
| 70 |
in the first place? |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
So, things come together in the end. |
Archives