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

[Brian Dolbec]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 09:29:18 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> 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.
>

of course not, you should have read what I said completely.  Especially
the last two sentences.

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>