| 1 |
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:06:28 -0500 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2019-02-05 11:41 a.m., Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
> > How is it different from the sunrise overlay? We had very similar |
| 5 |
> > unreviewed/reviewed split model there. And you buried that project |
| 6 |
> > yourself ~2.5 years ago because it was stinking already. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Furthermore such project will distort already thin resources from |
| 9 |
> > proxy maint and GH PR reviewers. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > So I see no practical point in resurrecting sunrise under another |
| 12 |
> > name and a slightly different policy. So please NO. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Best regards, |
| 15 |
> > Andrew Savchenko |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The primary difference I see between this new proposal and Sunrise is |
| 19 |
> that it isn't going to hinge on what ended up being a single gentoo |
| 20 |
> developer handling all of the publishing reviews, and there won't be a |
| 21 |
> review-before-initial-commit either. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I'm not sure if it will pull away from proxy-maint or GH PR's either, |
| 24 |
> but rather re-focus those two projects to allowing user-contributions |
| 25 |
> to existing gentoo-repo packages while this new project will be for |
| 26 |
> new packages. If anything I think it may reduce the effort necessary |
| 27 |
> to keep up with those projects since new packages won't need to be |
| 28 |
> maintained there.* |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Whether or not these differences are sufficient to empower us to make |
| 31 |
> this repo, I don't know -- Sunrise was started back when overlays were |
| 32 |
> few and not nearly as simple to create. The idea of having everyone |
| 33 |
> commit to one place rather than each having their own could be better |
| 34 |
> in theory, but if users prefer to just run their own like they do now |
| 35 |
> then this project's going to be a bit of a waste... |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Frankly, that's what I'm expecting based on sunrise experience. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> * we could very well have an issue, just like we did with Sunrise, |
| 40 |
> where a dev moving the package to gentoo repo and 'taking over' from |
| 41 |
> the users that previously 'owned' it in GURU ends up causing some |
| 42 |
> conflict. I don't recall if policy was ever sorted on that since iirc |
| 43 |
> we can have the same issue with proxy-maint too? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
No, we don't have similar problem with proxy-maint. Proxied |
| 46 |
maintainers are considered on par with regular developers when we |
| 47 |
are talking about touching other people stuff: that is, a developer |
| 48 |
can't touch package owned by proxied maintainer if he's not his |
| 49 |
proxy or if there is no prior agreement with proxied maintainer, or |
| 50 |
if a timeout was not reached for proxied maintainer reply. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Another great difference is that both GH PR's and PM are improving |
| 53 |
the official Gentoo repository while proposed GURU repo will be a |
| 54 |
separate project. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
And since it is a separate project, any developer (or proxy |
| 57 |
maintainer) will be free to add whatever they want from GURU to the |
| 58 |
main Gentoo tree. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Best regards, |
| 61 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives