Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GURU v2, now with reviewed layer
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 21:44:00
Message-Id: 20190206004353.513a4274d50f7df678b52bd8@gentoo.org
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:06:28 -0500 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 2019-02-05 11:41 a.m., Andrew Savchenko wrote:
[...]
> > How is it different from the sunrise overlay? We had very similar > > unreviewed/reviewed split model there. And you buried that project > > yourself ~2.5 years ago because it was stinking already. > > > > Furthermore such project will distort already thin resources from > > proxy maint and GH PR reviewers. > > > > So I see no practical point in resurrecting sunrise under another > > name and a slightly different policy. So please NO. > > > > Best regards, > > Andrew Savchenko > > > > The primary difference I see between this new proposal and Sunrise is > that it isn't going to hinge on what ended up being a single gentoo > developer handling all of the publishing reviews, and there won't be a > review-before-initial-commit either. > > I'm not sure if it will pull away from proxy-maint or GH PR's either, > but rather re-focus those two projects to allowing user-contributions > to existing gentoo-repo packages while this new project will be for > new packages. If anything I think it may reduce the effort necessary > to keep up with those projects since new packages won't need to be > maintained there.* > > Whether or not these differences are sufficient to empower us to make > this repo, I don't know -- Sunrise was started back when overlays were > few and not nearly as simple to create. The idea of having everyone > commit to one place rather than each having their own could be better > in theory, but if users prefer to just run their own like they do now > then this project's going to be a bit of a waste...
Frankly, that's what I'm expecting based on sunrise experience.
> * we could very well have an issue, just like we did with Sunrise, > where a dev moving the package to gentoo repo and 'taking over' from > the users that previously 'owned' it in GURU ends up causing some > conflict. I don't recall if policy was ever sorted on that since iirc > we can have the same issue with proxy-maint too?
No, we don't have similar problem with proxy-maint. Proxied maintainers are considered on par with regular developers when we are talking about touching other people stuff: that is, a developer can't touch package owned by proxied maintainer if he's not his proxy or if there is no prior agreement with proxied maintainer, or if a timeout was not reached for proxied maintainer reply. Another great difference is that both GH PR's and PM are improving the official Gentoo repository while proposed GURU repo will be a separate project. And since it is a separate project, any developer (or proxy maintainer) will be free to add whatever they want from GURU to the main Gentoo tree. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko