From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FM4nJ-00080L-S3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:58:42 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5) with SMTP id k2MEvWK8022486; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:57:32 GMT Received: from outmail.freedom2surf.net (outmail1.freedom2surf.net [194.106.33.237]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2MErarQ010833 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:53:36 GMT Received: from [192.168.66.3] (i-195-137-43-74.freedom2surf.net [195.137.43.74]) (authenticated bits=0) by outmail.freedom2surf.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k2MErV5L018121 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:53:36 GMT Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making the developer community more open From: Jonathan Coome To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <46059ce10603220615t2ebd0ebh643710033883f622@mail.gmail.com> References: <441F35B9.8000406@gentoo.org> <1143024569.27445.23.camel@getafix.chiltonfoliat.org> <3b09e8e90603220558s5ac1e6d8ya5b44dd0bcbea9e9@mail.gmail.com> <46059ce10603220615t2ebd0ebh643710033883f622@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:55:47 +0000 Message-Id: <1143039347.32175.5.camel@getafix.chiltonfoliat.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c1510864-52a2-43d5-90a9-d74fa72f8091 X-Archives-Hash: 637a32f27850dccd8ecad38b4dc0256d On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:15 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote: > Asking developers to "proxy" takes almost as much time as it does to > ask them to maintain a package by themselves. The developer is > directly responsible for anything he commits, so he will have to still > test the ebuild, still test any revisions, and still follow the > package to make sure there are no problems. The writing the ebuild > part of the process is not that much of the commitment, I don't see > the point. Well no, that's not really what I was suggesting. Developers who took on these ebuilds would only be responsible for checking that they don't break the tree and that they do actually work. They aren't responsible for fixing the package when it breaks, or for following its development at all - that's the responsibility of the _users_ maintaining the package. Yes, writing the ebuild is the least part of the process, but there's often a lot more involved, and it's that that's being done in bugzilla at the moment. The way I see it, the developer would only be responsible for the ebuilds, and not for doing everything else. -- Jonathan Coome Gentoo Forums Moderator -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list