1 |
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 12:41:51PM +0100, Gunnar Wrobel wrote: |
2 |
> Ok, so this clearly describes a man power problem that currently does |
3 |
> not exist. I know from personal experience that I only have about half |
4 |
> a day for looking at a bug assigned to webapps until Renat wakes up and |
5 |
> fixes it :) But it's clear that the herd should be able to handle the |
6 |
> bugs in case Renat is not around. |
7 |
|
8 |
We need to be able, yes. Realistically speaking, if I disappear, that would |
9 |
require someone else spending more time on bug-fixing. Nowadays it's not too bad |
10 |
- we're talking maybe 1-5 version bumps and a couple of bugs a week. Is there |
11 |
anyone willing to take on that responsibility? |
12 |
|
13 |
Stuart and I agreed that I will start forwarding all my Gentoo mail to him (and |
14 |
anyone else who's interested) when I leave for the summer to make sure we |
15 |
continue to get release notifications and email from upstream. |
16 |
|
17 |
> Would it be reasonable to try to define two webapps members as primary |
18 |
> maintainers for each of the packages that we select? I believe that |
19 |
> could reduce the effect of looking at a bug and deciding that |
20 |
> "somebody" will certainly fix it. |
21 |
|
22 |
Excellent point. Currently I just assume that if a bug is filed, I'm the person |
23 |
who'll fix it. Are other herd members willing and able to pitch in? |
24 |
|
25 |
> I believe that we should not make the current suggestion for the |
26 |
> security requirements a real requirement for the list of selected |
27 |
> applications but instead just declare them as the desired goal. |
28 |
|
29 |
I'm still unconvinced that security requirements meet a real need. We don't |
30 |
currently have any outstanding security issues (perhaps with the exception of |
31 |
phpBB and mantisbt, both of which have active upstreams yet can't get their act |
32 |
together wrt security, and both are p-masked). |
33 |
|
34 |
> As I mentioned in my last mail, I wanted to be able to have additional |
35 |
> packages in portage that I personally use. The main reason for that |
36 |
> was that I feel that the overlay will never be on the same level as |
37 |
> the tree itself. While it is not extremely complex to use the user |
38 |
> will have to know about it, install subversion, check out a |
39 |
> repository, and modify the make.conf. This is more than what I |
40 |
> consider necessary to tell the user "that this package is less well |
41 |
> maintained / less secure than the packages in the main portage tree". |
42 |
> I guess it will actually prevent a number of people from ever |
43 |
> seeing the package. |
44 |
|
45 |
I say go for it - if you're willing to maintain them yourself and aren't going |
46 |
to create more work for me ;) |
47 |
|
48 |
> In addition I believe some users might not be exactly happy if we |
49 |
> start moving packages out of portage into the overlay. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> So in order to make the process less complex I will provide |
52 |
> "layman". The tool is able to manage gentoo overlays. In order to get |
53 |
> the webapps overlay you run |
54 |
> |
55 |
> emerge layman |
56 |
> layman -f -a webapps-stable -a webapps-experimental |
57 |
> |
58 |
> to get both overlays fetched and added to your make.conf |
59 |
> automatically. To update the repositories you can later run |
60 |
> |
61 |
> layman --sync |
62 |
> |
63 |
> People that want to crash their hard drives can get it from my |
64 |
> overlay: |
65 |
> |
66 |
> layman -f -a wrobel-stable |
67 |
> emerge layman |
68 |
> |
69 |
> :) |
70 |
> |
71 |
> I think this significantly reduces the differences between the overlay |
72 |
> and the tree. As a result my urge to add stuff to the tree would also |
73 |
> be significantly reduced. And I think that moving stuff from the tree |
74 |
> to the overlay would then be an acceptable option. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> For the overlay I would suggest that the "production-stable" branch |
77 |
> should be only accesible to devs and that we handle it the same way as |
78 |
> we currently handle the tree. The "experimental" branch would continue |
79 |
> to be our playground. |
80 |
|
81 |
All great ideas. layman would be great - any idea when you'll release? Have you |
82 |
checked with other devs if they're aware of or are developing something similar? |
83 |
|
84 |
-- |
85 |
Renat Lumpau all things web-apps |
86 |
C6A838DA 04AF B5EE 17CB 1000 DDA5 D3FC 1338 ADC2 C6A8 38DA |
87 |
America - land of the free* |
88 |
*Void where prohibited, restrictions apply. Cash value 1/100c. |