Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Michał Górny]

W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶25 -0800, użytkownik Brian Dolbec
napisał:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:21:57 +0000
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
>
> > I did wish to participate re two items here, but regretfully I will be
> > travelling at the time, and it's unlikely that I will have
> > connectivity.
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > > 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
> > > --------------------------------
> > > Full-tree verification using Manifest files
> >
> > The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the previous
> > month's version.
> >
> > > 4. Restricting gentoo-dev/-project posting [6]
> > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > * Restricting posting to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-project, while
> > > creating a gentoo-experts list?
> > > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
> > > business there?
> > > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
> > > business to a revived restricted gentoo-council list?
> > > * Moderating lists instead?
> >
> > I had not weighed in publicly on this before, but wish to make a
> > statement.
> > The original split of gentoo-dev to gentoo-project included
> > moderation of gentoo-dev, however that was never really implemented,
> > mostly for technical reasons, and a decreased need after the split.
> >
> > I oppose a further split of -dev/-project/-experts, and instead
> > propose better list policies of -dev. If it's technical, even coming
> > from an expert user, it probably belongs on -dev. If it's about the
> > organizational structures of Gentoo, it belongs on -project.
> > How do we keep the threads more on-topic? Moderation maybe, but I'm
> > not convinced that is best.
> >
> >
>
>
> I second this.  I too do not want to see the lists split even further.
> There are far too many interested and competent users in it that can
> and do contribute in some ways.  There has to be a better solution.
>
>
> Also:
>
> 1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1]
> -----------------------------------------
> Anything that can be done?
>
>
> I am intending to set up a buildbot instance and develop some builder
> scripts for it to aid in regular package maintenance.  It should be
> able to do basic version bumps and run the test suite, present it to the
> pkg maintainers for final Q/A and pushes to the tree.  It should also be
> able to check/test on whatever arches that have a worker connected to
> it.  So this should help take some of the pressure off the various arch
> teams.  My first goal is for it to do many of the python pkgs I
> maintain to get the basic system up and running.  Plus I should be able
> to leverage some of the g-sorcery/gs-pypi code.  Once operational, it
> should be possible to add additional parsers to check for and update
> dependencies to add additional types of pkgs to its capabilities.
>

I hope you don't mean to bump packages without checking for changed
dependencies and other important build system changes.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny