Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 26 -- Handling kernels with portage

[John Nilsson <john@milsson.nu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2591 bytes --]

Would anyone be interested in improving the GLEP process?
Some thoughts:

A GLEP should have three parts

1. A case for the problem.
	This document will discuss the problem.
	* Is there a problem?
	* What is the nature of the problem?
	* Who is affected by the problem?
	* Should the problem be solved?

2. Solution requirement analysis.
	This document will declare the requirements that a proposed 	solution
will be tested against.

3. Solution
	A document describing the solution.

Each document should be accepted before the next part is worked on. A
document MUST have a version history. A solution(3) MUST link to a
particular version of the SRA(2) which MUST link to a particular version
of problem(1).

I also suggest a wiki-like development model for documents.

-John

On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 18:36, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Monday 03 May 2004 16:15, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > However, its just a Proposal.  And if devs get this 
> > much negative "your idea can't work" criticism from a simple GLEP, how
> > do you think a Gentoo user would ever feel comfortable filing a GLEP
> > (which is what they were intended for!).
> 
> I think any submitted proposal needs to be able to stand up to rigorous 
> technical scrutiny.  If the idea has merit, or a groundswell of support, then 
> the proposal will be the better for it.  If the idea is weak, flawed, or 
> substantially incomplete - it's important we catch these things now before 
> it's our users catching the results ;-)
> 
> A commonly-taught method of evaluating any proposal is de Bono's hats - where 
> you look at a proposal from a specific viewpoint.  Look it up, and you'll see 
> where I'm coming from.
> 
> > In the same way as not bashing a user for contributing an ebuild
> > (remember, they could be a future contributer to Gentoo), we should,
> > when faced with a GLEP, stop and think if there is anything posative
> > about it, then try to come up with working scenarios.  Remember, devs
> > are contributers to Gentoo.
> 
> Yes they are.  And you're right - anyone should be able to put forward a GLEP 
> without fear.
> 
> > Thats also fine with me.  I don't want the GLEP approved right away, I
> > just wanted it to be a sounding board for discussion to develop a good
> > prototype.  Isn't that what a GLEP is for?
> 
> Maybe it would help if that discussion happened first, and the results were 
> written up into a GLEP for approval.  That's happened in the past, and seems 
> a successful model to reproduce.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stu

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]