1 |
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM, James <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Here's one, very, very interesting proposals, under |
4 |
> serious consideration: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Distributed_Gentoo |
7 |
> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I'd be curious what the fine and wonderful folks at |
10 |
> gentoo_user think of this proposal. Old farts are |
11 |
> welcome to comment, even encourage to "constructively rant".... |
12 |
|
13 |
Honestly, I think it is a bit optimistic, though something I'd love to |
14 |
see. I'm more of a fan of getting the new working before dismantling |
15 |
the old, and I'm not keen on proposals that start out with gutting |
16 |
what we already have before there is anything new to replace it. |
17 |
Burning bridges usually isn't wise. |
18 |
|
19 |
The optimistic bit is that the proposal is that the only part of |
20 |
Gentoo that would actually be developed centrally are the parts that |
21 |
almost nobody is working on today. That basically amounts to just |
22 |
having all the developers quit, and hoping that they all move on to |
23 |
work on overlays instead of moving on to something else. |
24 |
|
25 |
There are a lot of technical challenges in such an approach - |
26 |
supporting overlays isn't all that unlike trying to provide kernel |
27 |
internal API stability. I think it could be done better, but it would |
28 |
be a big change. IMHO it makes far more sense to make those changes |
29 |
and use them for our own internal benefit in the main repository, and |
30 |
THEN think about whether the main repository is still needed. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Rich |