[gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Mike Doty]

All-

We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise.
Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now.
Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted
overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them.

There will be a summary posted as soon as someone finds the time.

=====log======
* tomk (n=tomk@gentoo/developer/pdpc.active.tomk) has joined #gentoo-devrel
Kugelfang sure
KingTaco ok
KingTaco so, regarding bugs
KingTaco Inoverlay is ambigous
KingTaco so, I'll state that at this point it shouldn't be used for sunrise
brix it should be used for official overlays
Kugelfang true
KingTaco [sunrise-overlay], not being an "official" overlay yet,
shouldn't be in the bug either
KingTaco I thought we were going to be quiet for a minute
brix sorry
* tantive__ (n=tantive@gentoo/developer/tantive) has joined #gentoo-devrel
KingTaco however, when there is a bug in bugzilla where the ebuild is
hosted on sunrise stuff, it is appropriste to put a link to the source
KingTaco everyone agree?
plasmaroo Changes should go both ways IMO
genstef so changing URL is valid or not?
brix KingTaco: what about the TLP page?
KingTaco it removes any perceived legitimization while still privindg
the link to the stuff
KingTaco brix, I'm going to get to that
plasmaroo Link should go into comments, not URL
brix ok
KingTaco plasmaroo, yes, if I didn't explicitly say that, yes
genstef Kugelfang: changing URL is valid or not?
KingTaco genstef, you following me?
genstef KingTaco: changing URL is valid or not?
plasmaroo genstef: We just said no, pay attention.
KingTaco the URL field should link to the sources, not the ebuild
genstef ok
KingTaco or the upstream project page
plasmaroo (Meaning, *not sunrise*)
amne what about updating outdated information as in bug 136344? if they
link to it they should take care it's not broken (imho)
jeeves amne: http://bugs.gentoo.org/136344 enh, P2, All,
d@ompty.org->maintainer-wanted@gentoo.org, NEW, pending,
x11-themes/gtk-engines-rezlooks ebuild
KingTaco ok, regarding the proj/ page
KingTaco amne, shhhhh
plasmaroo amne: Hang on a few.
amne (sorry)
KingTaco now, I don't see a reason to remove that content, if there is a
good possibility that the project will be moved to an "official" gentoo
overlay status
KingTaco however, it should be noted that the project is suspended
KingTaco it should be obvious
KingTaco that said, there is a continueing effort for sunrise outside of
gentoo and I feel it would be a disservice to those users who want to
use the overlay not to be able to find it
plasmaroo A suggestion from me: change gentoo-sunrise trac and add a
fat-ass "this is not official, trademark property of Gentoo, bla bla
bla, we are not associated, bla bla bla"
* trick_ (n=trick@24-247-121-95.dhcp.klmz.mi.charter.com) has joined
#gentoo-devrel
KingTaco so, while it is suspended, there shall be a link to the
unofficial page
plasmaroo Right now you're using the Gentoo trademark and not saying that.
KingTaco plasmaroo, shhhh
brix KingTaco: but linking to the unofficial, unsuspended overlay
defeats the whole idea of having suspended the overlay in the first place
KingTaco we're getting to that
plasmaroo brix: Yeah, but we can't really restrict devs from free speech
or whatever
plasmaroo It's the association that counts, not the fact of existance.
brix plasmaroo: we can, however, restrict links from our official TLP pages
plasmaroo I guess.
KingTaco brix, there isn't any reason to prohibit linking to external
sites.  however, there is a compromise here
plasmaroo The issue is association rather than linking outright.
plasmaroo Right: We are suspended, see gentoo-sunrise.org for more
details. Right now Gentoo does not support this period. Wrong: Our
project website is here: ...
KingTaco in able to link to the sunrise server, it should be prominantly
displayed on all sunrise pages that it is unofficial and that bugs
should not go to gentoo bugzilla
KingTaco plasmaroo, while intrupting me, is correct
KingTaco now, everyone speak
plasmaroo genstef: So, can you change the sunrise pages?
KingTaco unless I hear some valid objections to what I say, this is how
it's going to be until the council makes a firm decision
brix KingTaco: ok
genstef Note: We are suspended on gentoo but the project continues
unofficially on gentoo-sunrise.org
plasmaroo That sounds sane to me as well, I second that.
brix KingTaco: works-for-me
genstef ok?
KingTaco genstef, that sounds fine
amne KingTaco: what i wanted to say before, considering linking to
sunrise is OK, they should take care to update their links in bugzilla
then too (see 136344, it points to the suspended overlay, which is the
worst case scenario)
plasmaroo Please add "Any bugs must not go to Gentoo Bugzilla but to the
sunrise tracker/whatever."
brix perhaps a link to the summary of the Council meeting?
KingTaco amne, correct, but I feel that genstef would do that anyway, as
it only hurts sunrise users
genstef plasmaroo: that is already in the FAQ, no bugs for sunrise at all.
KingTaco so, everyone cool?
genstef KingTaco: we cannot really update bugzilla comments  :(
amne KingTaco: appearently it's not been done yet  ;-)
KingTaco genstef, no, just add a new link when you clean up the bug
genstef ok.
KingTaco amne, dude, we just decided how to handle this 30 seconds ago
plasmaroo genstef: Okay, so if you link to the FAQ then that would be nice.
genstef plasmaroo: link to the FAQ where?
KingTaco someone with better english than I want to summerize/log this
and send it to the world?
plasmaroo On sunrise pages I suppose
plasmaroo KingTaco: If somebody else doesn't get to it by tomorrow sure
but it's getting late here  :)
KingTaco the last thing that I have to say is that when/if the council
makes a firm decision, it will superceed anything we set forth here
brix KingTaco: of course
genstef updating the project page
amne KingTaco: the outdated links have been there since the project was
suspended, that was my point  ;-)
plasmaroo genstef: danke
tantive__ wow
brix genstef: please add a link to the summary of the Council meeting?
tantive__ so everyone is happy again?
jakub amne: yes, we can't wipe bugzilla comments, they'll be there
forever...
genstef brix: ok, will do
plasmaroo tantive__: I hope so
KingTaco amne, I'm confident that the sunrise people will make the
nesessary corrections... if after a couple of days you still find a bad
one, please let genstef know
brix genstef: thank you
tantive__ thanks everyone
KingTaco surely
tantive__ and not lets get back to work
tantive__ (or to bed)
plasmaroo :]
KingTaco s/t/w
amne jakub: i know, but update - which i hope will happen now
KingTaco ok, I'm going to send a raw log to -dev
brix will the whiteboard and keywords of the bug reports be wiped clean?
KingTaco brix, yes, they are not to be used at this point
brix KingTaco: ok, I'm happy then
brix thanks all
jakub please, be so kind and only wipe the relevant ones
tantive__ yeah
tantive__ halleluja
plasmaroo Ok, great.



-- 
=======================================================
Mike Doty                      kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
Gentoo Developer Relations
Gentoo Recruitment Lead
Gentoo Infrastructure
GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
> 
> We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise.
> Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now.
> Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted
> overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them.

I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
channel. Could someone clear me up on this?

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Stuart Herbert]

On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
> discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
> channel. Could someone clear me up on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Donnie

Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also
been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included
council members.

I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I
feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular
policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to
the council.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Anders Hellgren]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:

> On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>  I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
>>  discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
>>  channel. Could someone clear me up on this?
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>  Donnie
>
> Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also
> been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included
> council members.
>
> I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I
> feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular
> policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to
> the council.
>
> Best regards,
> Stu
>
FWIW, there was almost an hour's worth of discussion before the start of 
the log KingTaco posted. As a bystander, my guess is that the discussion 
took place in the devrel channel because a complaint about the use of the 
bugzilla whiteboard by the sunrise folks was brought up in that channel. 
The compromise was made to defuse further escalation to a formal complaint 
to devrel.

/Anders
- -- 
Anders Hellgren (kallamej)
Gentoo Forums Administrator
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEm5a5FX025WX+RG4RAvVOAKCQICkWz0MTJ4snNN0mdNT1MF/aWQCgrtQ2
rL5SMgybISpQLn7Lh52UO8A=
=Y6ad
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2663 bytes --]

Anders Hellgren wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> 
>>> On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>  I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
>>>>  discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
>>>>  channel. Could someone clear me up on this?
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks,
>>>>  Donnie
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also
>>> been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included
>>> council members.
>>>
>>> I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I
>>> feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular
>>> policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to
>>> the council.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Stu
>>>
> FWIW, there was almost an hour's worth of discussion before the start of
> the log KingTaco posted. As a bystander, my guess is that the discussion
> took place in the devrel channel because a complaint about the use of
> the bugzilla whiteboard by the sunrise folks was brought up in that
> channel. The compromise was made to defuse further escalation to a
> formal complaint to devrel.
> 
> /Anders
> -- Anders Hellgren (kallamej)
> Gentoo Forums Administrator

OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs
somewhere else from bugzilla. You know very well I had no problem w/
assigning them, I just requested them to be clearly marked as such
(which the users have been doing, thank you for that). Since some
developers consider such use of bugzilla as misuse of Gentoo
infrastructure and have gone so far that they involved devrel in this
discussion, I'm not going to assign those bugs any more.

Your 'thank you' goes especially to brix, your complaints go to devrel
as a body that proclaimed themselves empowered to decide on acceptable
bugzilla usage. There's no technical difference between using bugzilla
for unofficial java migration overlay hosted on gentooexperimental.org
and using it for unofficial overlay hosted on gentoo-sunrise.org (and
even usage of keywords and status whiteboard for unofficial overlays
counts as a misuse of bugzilla here). Devrel's current policy clearly is
that bugzilla may only be used for official overlays hosted on
overlays.gentoo.org,


Sorry for the inconvenience, not my fault.

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Alec Warner]

Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical
> decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but
> aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds?
> 
> What is this absolute nonsense of "you don't like my toy, you can't have
> your toy" going on around here?  Jakub, if you will disrupt others
> because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what
> your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve
> some other project.
> 

I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds 
(not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying 
that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it 
is :)  I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the PHP 
overlay, the webapps overlay...etc...

> This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast.
> People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama.
> 
> Seemant

Look, I was on IRC yesterday, the whole thing was a mess.  For once I'm 
not going to step on devrels balls for this one.  Someone had to do 
something.  For once I'm tired of *someone acting* and then getting 
nailed for it because its not their place.  Am I thrilled with the 
outcome?  No not really.  Apparently neither is Jakub.  Thats all fine. 
  Can always overturn it later.  Or we can discuss it endlessly here 
with no outcome, or we can make the council decide on what the proper 
use of bugzilla is.  Or we can all realize that we can't get our way all 
the time and compromise with other projects*.

* Including projects currently suspended.

-Alec
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Joshua Nichols]

Jakub Moc wrote:
> Anders Hellgren wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>>
>>>> On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>  I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
>>>>>  discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
>>>>>  channel. Could someone clear me up on this?
>>>>>
>>>>>  Thanks,
>>>>>  Donnie
>>>> Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also
>>>> been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included
>>>> council members.
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I
>>>> feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular
>>>> policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to
>>>> the council.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Stu
>>>>
>> FWIW, there was almost an hour's worth of discussion before the start of
>> the log KingTaco posted. As a bystander, my guess is that the discussion
>> took place in the devrel channel because a complaint about the use of
>> the bugzilla whiteboard by the sunrise folks was brought up in that
>> channel. The compromise was made to defuse further escalation to a
>> formal complaint to devrel.
>>
>> /Anders
>> -- Anders Hellgren (kallamej)
>> Gentoo Forums Administrator
> 
> OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs
> somewhere else from bugzilla. You know very well I had no problem w/
> assigning them, I just requested them to be clearly marked as such
> (which the users have been doing, thank you for that). Since some
> developers consider such use of bugzilla as misuse of Gentoo
> infrastructure and have gone so far that they involved devrel in this
> discussion, I'm not going to assign those bugs any more.
> 
> Your 'thank you' goes especially to brix, your complaints go to devrel
> as a body that proclaimed themselves empowered to decide on acceptable
> bugzilla usage. There's no technical difference between using bugzilla
> for unofficial java migration overlay hosted on gentooexperimental.org
> and using it for unofficial overlay hosted on gentoo-sunrise.org (and
> even usage of keywords and status whiteboard for unofficial overlays
> counts as a misuse of bugzilla here). Devrel's current policy clearly is
> that bugzilla may only be used for official overlays hosted on
> overlays.gentoo.org,
> 
> 
> Sorry for the inconvenience, not my fault.
> 

Umm.... maybe it's just to early in the morning, but I don't see
anything in the logs regarding using bugzilla for overlays not on
overlays.gentoo.org. I only see references to sunrise specifically, not
a blanket statement for all non-overlays.gentoo.org overlays

Or was this part of a discussion / decision that wasn't on this mailing
list...?

Josh
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Andrew Cowie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 914 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 06:50 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote:
> > OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs
> > somewhere else from bugzilla.

The gentoo-java developers have been working their tails off for over a
year to do a massive migration (far broader reaching than the average
GCC major version upgrade). That you would turn around and tell them to
begone from Gentoo bugzilla with this work is really a bit off colour.

They deserve every possible accolade we can give them for their
dedication to the cause, and every bit of support we can muster to help
them see this project through to completion.

AfC
Sydney

-- 
Andrew Frederick Cowie

Technology strategy, managing change, establishing procedures,
and executing successful upgrades to mission critical business
infrastructure.

http://www.operationaldynamics.com/

Sydney   New York   Toronto   London

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Seemant Kulleen]

First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical
decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but
aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds?

What is this absolute nonsense of "you don't like my toy, you can't have
your toy" going on around here?  Jakub, if you will disrupt others
because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what
your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve
some other project.

This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast.
People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama.

Seemant


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Patrick Lauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1687 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 22:18 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 06:50 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote:
> > > OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs
> > > somewhere else from bugzilla.
> 
> The gentoo-java developers have been working their tails off for over a
> year to do a massive migration (far broader reaching than the average
> GCC major version upgrade). That you would turn around and tell them to
> begone from Gentoo bugzilla with this work is really a bit off colour.
No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as 
well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by
logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is
stupid, unfair and stupid.

> They deserve every possible accolade we can give them for their
> dedication to the cause, and every bit of support we can muster to help
> them see this project through to completion.
I agree with you there. While I'd prefer to get rid of Java I don't let
that influence my behaviour towards the project (or I'd have kicked them
off my server a long time ago!)

I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on
other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon.
Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done
whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating
the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack
on the persons and not on the technical structure.

wkr,
Patrick

 
-- 
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2397 bytes --]

Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical
> decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but
> aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds?

Not sure either, maybe brix will be able to answer your question better.


> What is this absolute nonsense of "you don't like my toy, you can't have
> your toy" going on around here?  Jakub, if you will disrupt others
> because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what
> your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve
> some other project.

Uhm, what I am saying here is that we can either have a *general* policy
on acceptable bugzilla usage, or no policy at all. Inventing ad-hoc
policies for a single project just because a couple of folks dislike
that project does not do any good and does not make any sense either.

The whole concept of status whiteboard and keywords usage constituting a
misuse of Gentoo infrastructure is pretty new to me. That stuff is there
 to make searching for bugs and their grouping easier, and as such has
been used. Then someone comes to #-devrel with the above complaint, and
devrel (or some its member) within an hour decides that all such
keywords and status whiteboard records need to be nuked from bugzilla?

What are the grounds for such decision, and why it's OK for one
unofficial project to use bugzilla for their bugs, and why it's so
horribly wrong for another unofficial project to even pollute those
fields, without actually creating new bugs? That's what this thread is
about, and that's why I have brought this up. Not to harm java migration
and java folks. As I have stated already, I have no problem with their
bugs, I've even talked to nichoj some weeks ago to arrange it in the
best possible way.


> This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast.
> People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama.
> 
> Seemant

There would not be any issue if devrel didn't act the way they did, the
matter has not been urgent at all.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Mike Doty]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
>> All-
>>
>> We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise.
>> Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now.
>> Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted
>> overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them.
> 
> I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
> discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
> channel. Could someone clear me up on this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
because it wasn't a technical decision.  it's a temporary compromise
until whatever governing party can make a decision on to how to handle
it.  I made a compromise that both sides are able to live with until the
council makes a decision.  This is what developer relations should be doing.

I'm sorry if you view this as a "show of force" or if you feel that I've
"overstepped by bounds",  I did what I felt was correct to diffuse a
situation and got people back to what they are supposed to be doing,
developing, not fighting.


-- 
=======================================================
Mike Doty                      kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
Gentoo Developer Relations
Gentoo Recruitment Lead
Gentoo Infrastructure
GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Harald van Dijk]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:43:23AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical
> decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but
> aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds?
> 
> What is this absolute nonsense of "you don't like my toy, you can't have
> your toy" going on around here?  Jakub, if you will disrupt others
> because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what
> your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve
> some other project.

You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he
*doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another?

> This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast.
> People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama.

Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Mike Doty]

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
>> discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
>> channel. Could someone clear me up on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donnie
> 
> Sorry, but I must second this, especially as discussions have also
> been continuing that (unlike Mike's discussion) actually included
> council members.
> 
> I'm all for folks trying to help resolve the Sunrise issues, but I
> feel that it's not devrel's place to be deciding this particular
> policy issue, especially when the issue has already been referred to
> the council.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stu
It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting.  This is what I
did.  I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is
willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put
forth yesterday.

-- 
=======================================================
Mike Doty                      kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
Gentoo Developer Relations
Gentoo Recruitment Lead
Gentoo Infrastructure
GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Alec Warner]

> 
> Executive summary:
> There is a (by now) well established knowledge on group dynamics depending on 
> its size, involving parameters such as "Dubnar's number" for example. Two 
> references I spotted just recently (well, Ok, they are from 2004 actually :)) 
> can be found below:
> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html
> http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/03/what_is_the_opt.html
> 
> (and here is a more scientific writing, a "base article" for which the above 
> two are kind of illustratory/anecdotal evidence types:
> http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs00000565-00/bbs.dunbar.html

All three were very informative, were we to actaully task a commitee (of 
  seven people!) to take a look at how we interact, it would be an 
interesting job I think; perhaps leading to some ideas on how to 
reorganize ourselves.

-Alec
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Andrew Gaffney]

Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast.
> People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama.

+1 (with gusto!)

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                            http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer                                   Installer Project

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Stephen P. Becker]

Patrick Lauer wrote:
> No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as 
> well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
> If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by
> logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is
> stupid, unfair and stupid.

Wow, you are incredibly good at dismissing the actual argument that many
folks have raised against sunrise, and instead inserting the
"waaaaaaahhhhhh!!! they aren't treating us the same!!!" argument.  In
fact, there is no reason to be treated the same in this case.  The
council decided that sunrise was to be suspended, which in my mind
constitutes a total scorched earth policy with respect to the use of any
sort of Gentoo infra in any way.  The council did not decide that the
java overlay was to be suspended, ergo the java overlay can use Gentoo
infra as a resource.

> I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on
> other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon.
> Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done
> whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating
> the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack
> on the persons and not on the technical structure.

Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a
personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches
a point that you have nothing meaningful to say.

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2660 bytes --]

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as 
>> well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
>> If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by
>> logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is
>> stupid, unfair and stupid.
> 
> Wow, you are incredibly good at dismissing the actual argument that many
> folks have raised against sunrise, and instead inserting the
> "waaaaaaahhhhhh!!! they aren't treating us the same!!!" argument.  In
> fact, there is no reason to be treated the same in this case.  The
> council decided that sunrise was to be suspended, which in my mind
> constitutes a total scorched earth policy with respect to the use of any
> sort of Gentoo infra in any way.  The council did not decide that the
> java overlay was to be suspended, ergo the java overlay can use Gentoo
> infra as a resource.


Frankly said, neither council nor devrel have any say in suspending
projects hosted outside of gentoo, be it sunrise, gentopia,
java-migration, java-experimental, BMG, or whatever else. You just can't
dictate unpaid people what are they going to do in their free time
(though some people would probably like to...) - so, please don't move
this debate off-topic.


>> I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on
>> other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon.
>> Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done
>> whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating
>> the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack
>> on the persons and not on the technical structure.
> 
> Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a
> personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches
> a point that you have nothing meaningful to say.

So... sunrise has been suspended, moved to it's own domain, moved to
non-gentoo hardware - and some people still are not satisfied and need
to find something to annoy the bunch of people working on it. And, as
there's not much left, they take something really childish and
ridiculous, such as bugzilla keywords and status whiteboard, and run to
devrel to ask for an urgent decision? What's this, if not a personal thing?



-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Ned Ludd]

On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 19:05 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
> 
> We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise.
> Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now.
> Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted
> overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them.
> 

[snip log]

Ok if I may chime in. Some people seem to have a problem with devrel
enforcement of a council recommendation. As the council itself was
never asked to make a hard decision on the fate of sunrise, but only
asked to discuss it. We the council discussed it and made a soft 
recommendation. So to me it appears that devrel is doing it's job and 
is perfectly within bounds in the following up of council 
recommendation till such time as sunrise matures enough to be
re-evaluated.

With respects to Gentoo trademarks. That is a foundation issue and
would have to be raised with them.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 594 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 09:58 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> With respects to Gentoo trademarks. That is a foundation issue and
> would have to be raised with them.

Well, if it doesn't follow the guidelines[1], then it is improper usage
and would either need to adhere to the guidelines or quit using our
trademarks.  If they are not following the guidelines, then it should be
brought to the trustees, as solar mentioned.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[George Shapovalov]

This was originally supposed to go into another thread, but hey - this is a 
perfect illustration of what I am going to talk about (to unconfuse Seemant 
right away - this is not related to your posting but rather to the situation 
that lead to it). I really was considering sending this as a "theoretical 
musings" email (pointed at spyderous primarily? he seems to enjoy my rare 
postings like these :)), but well, looks like I'll have to be somewhat 
serious for a change.

Executive summary:
There is a (by now) well established knowledge on group dynamics depending on 
its size, involving parameters such as "Dubnar's number" for example. Two 
references I spotted just recently (well, Ok, they are from 2004 actually :)) 
can be found below:
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/03/what_is_the_opt.html

(and here is a more scientific writing, a "base article" for which the above 
two are kind of illustratory/anecdotal evidence types:
http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs00000565-00/bbs.dunbar.html
)

The first two are kind of extreme in their coverage - one talks about MMORG 
guilds and another about terrorist cells, but hey, who said we are that 
different ;)? Both talk about social structure/critical sizes of the groups 
at small and medium scale. Social networks brought together towards 
implementing some common goal, so I say observations similar to those should 
apply to us too. 

It looks like we are now at that tipping point. 
herdstat tells me we are some 233 developers atm, which sounds damn close to 
that "magical" number of 150 active group participants (in our case that 
would correspond to reasonably active "regular" devs, i.e. the ones who do 
general maintaince, participate in discussions (by at least trying to read 
them) and at least sometimes emerge from that one small project they are 
in..). 

The suggestion "maybe this whole screaming is a something inherent to the 
group size" has been voiced recently a few times. So yes, to me this indeed 
seems very likely to be the case. Ironically, the later push to "cleanse" 
inactive devs, coupled with successfull recruitment may have been the thing 
that pushed us over (remember, "dead souls" don't count)..

So, what is the pont I am trying to make? Well, basically I just want to say 
that the problem is real and won't go away by periodically screaming "be nice 
to each other", since it seems to be inherent to a group size. We cannot just 
reduce our numbers - it does not work this way. If anything, we need *more* 
people, not less :). However at this point we cannot grow either. The main 
idea of the original (3rd cited) paper is that this is a real limit, imposed 
by the amount of "housekeeping interactions" that are needed to sustain a 
group of that size, "it is the way we are" as species. As you push more 
people in, more start leaving  and for a group to grow past that limit it has 
to restructure, assume a more diffuse interaction/more role division perhaps? 
(Similarly, just putting "some *one* at the top won't work either without 
restructuring the group. In fact it seems to work worse for the groups that 
are over the "small group limit"). So, yes, we have to adress it, and lets 
try to do it right. However lets not take this lightly, I sense a lot of 
fights involved :), but I am optimistic of eventual outcome..
(But don't ask me for a grand plan - I don't have one, I hope evolution forces 
will help us sort things out :)).

George 

PS.
A short short summary of critical group sizes. I really need to refresh my 
memory on that stuff though..

"Small groups" - 5 to 9, optimal - 7,8 People concentrate on one common 
problem and interact very closely.

"Medium groups" - 25 to 150, optimal 80-90 (but when there is a clear bias to 
add people (shiny idea/something valuable/commonly recognized as necessary) 
it is stable at a maximum of ~150). Often involves tight "small subgroups", 
normally specialized, general interaction is "loose" but still on a personal 
level (even if not very intensive)

"Large groups" - I only remember the upper limit of ~2000 for those and I am 
rusty on what is the "failing factor". Seems like a Debian situation to me 
(with most everybody else, us included, stuck at a "medium group" level).


Commertial entities often overcome these issues of scale by imposing 
a "chain-of-command" structure, effectively splitting into smaller subgroups 
and having a hierarchial structure made of those. However this arrangement is 
explicitly deemed unsuitable by many developers (according to voiced opinions 
in the past).
I suppose we can think about some loose arrangement of small and medium 
groups, may be even some minor modifications to our project structure can 
help (make Top level projects = medium group, subproject = small group). This 
one is apparent of course, but, as usual, the devil is in the details (people 
doing work in different areas and, most importantly, how to contain the 
interaction without prohibiting it..).

PPS
Sorry, this came out longer than I though, but I believe we need to have at 
least a clear understanding of the problem. If this brings a smile on 
somebodie's face, I say I am even :). If somebody takes this seriously, - so 
much the better..
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 568 bytes --]

Joshua Nichols wrote:
> Umm.... maybe it's just to early in the morning, but I don't see
> anything in the logs regarding using bugzilla for overlays not on
> overlays.gentoo.org. I only see references to sunrise specifically, not
> a blanket statement for all non-overlays.gentoo.org overlays
> 
> Or was this part of a discussion / decision that wasn't on this mailing
> list...?


Mike Doty wrote:
> Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted
> overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Joshua Nichols]

Patrick Lauer wrote:
> No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as
> well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
> If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by
> logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is
> stupid, unfair and stupid.
>
>   
Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I
grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an
'unofficial overlay'.

I take it that an official overlay would be one that's hosted on
overlays.g.o? If that's the case, our overlays have been around for at
least a year (that's when I started using it as a user), and probably
longer than that... which was before overlays.gentoo.org was even
around. Additionally, the overlays are managed by the our team, and have
been an integral part of our project, having been referenced for some
time from our 'official' IRC channel and our project page. In my mind,
this effectively make the overlays our 'official overlays'.
> I agree with you there. While I'd prefer to get rid of Java I don't let
> that influence my behaviour towards the project (or I'd have kicked them
> off my server a long time ago!)
>   
I'm sure you'll be happy to know we'll be moving to overlays.gentoo.org
as soon as reasonably possible. Note: this was already planned, and it
isn't me trying to be grumpy about the direction this discussion seems
to be going. We would have moved sooner, but mostly we've been busy
working on the migration stuff, so likely won't happen until we've moved
that into the tree.

- Josh

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

Mike Doty wrote:
> It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting.  This is what I
> did.  I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is
> willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put
> forth yesterday.

I agree that it is devrel's place to help people find a compromise. I
disagree that it is devrel's place to set general technical policy based
on this compromise by saying "All non-Gentoo hosted overlays are subject
to this" when the compromise does not involve all the relevant people.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1182 bytes --]

Alec Warner wrote:
> I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds
> (not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying
> that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it
> is :)  I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the PHP
> overlay, the webapps overlay...etc...

No, because those are now hosted by Gentoo.

> Look, I was on IRC yesterday, the whole thing was a mess.  For once I'm
> not going to step on devrels balls for this one.  Someone had to do
> something.  For once I'm tired of *someone acting* and then getting
> nailed for it because its not their place.  Am I thrilled with the
> outcome?  No not really.  Apparently neither is Jakub.  Thats all fine.
>  Can always overturn it later.  Or we can discuss it endlessly here with
> no outcome, or we can make the council decide on what the proper use of
> bugzilla is.  Or we can all realize that we can't get our way all the
> time and compromise with other projects*.

Yes, but as Seemant said, all those affected in the decision should be
involved (or at least represented) in the compromise.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:09:24 +0200 Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because
| he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over
| another?

One unofficial project that has screwed up so badly that the council
has had to step in and say no to it, as opposed to an unofficial
project that has not attracted complaints and that is being worked into
the tree?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2811 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Frankly said, neither council nor devrel have any say in suspending
> projects hosted outside of gentoo, be it sunrise, gentopia,
> java-migration, java-experimental, BMG, or whatever else. You just can't
> dictate unpaid people what are they going to do in their free time
> (though some people would probably like to...) - so, please don't move
> this debate off-topic.

They didn't suspend the project working outside Gentoo.  They suspended
it working *inside* Gentoo, which is what prompted the move in the first
place.  I'm not really sure where you think that this makes it
off-topic.

> > Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a
> > personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches
> > a point that you have nothing meaningful to say.
> 
> So... sunrise has been suspended, moved to it's own domain, moved to
> non-gentoo hardware - and some people still are not satisfied and need
> to find something to annoy the bunch of people working on it. And, as
> there's not much left, they take something really childish and
> ridiculous, such as bugzilla keywords and status whiteboard, and run to
> devrel to ask for an urgent decision? What's this, if not a personal thing?

Perhaps it is a few developers trying to actually enforce the council's
decision and make sure that the 100% unofficial project doesn't *look*
official.  Using "InOverlay" as if Sunrise is some sort of Gentoo
official overlay is a prime example of this.  Let's look at it this way.
If someone from Sunrise were to say "this ebuild is available in our
overlay" in a comment, nobody would really have a problem.  Having
someone with an @gentoo.org address setting "InOverlay" makes it look
like Gentoo is endorsing the overlay.  Remember that when you use your
@gentoo.org address, you're speaking for Gentoo in the user's eyes.
Using "InOverlay" would be the same as someone from BMG (that happened
to be a developer) doing it because it is in the BMG overlay.  It's
simply not accurate.

Now, the java team is an official Gentoo project, unlike Sunrise.  I
don't see how a non-Gentoo project and an official Gentoo project are
similar in this regard, at all, but you're welcome to keep arguing it
that way.  ;]

Of course, I haven't seen any of the bugs in question to see exactly
what it is that they were doing, I'm just making an observation based on
what I've been seeing in this thread.  Really, people... just because
someone has a problem with your *IDEA* doesn't make it an attack on
*YOU*.  It just means they don't like your idea.  Plain and simple...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote:
> Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I
> grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an
> 'unofficial overlay'.

No, this is about a project that was supposed to be suspended until
its details have been hashed out.

./Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1614 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Perhaps it is a few developers trying to actually enforce the council's
> decision and make sure that the 100% unofficial project doesn't *look*
> official.  Using "InOverlay" as if Sunrise is some sort of Gentoo
> official overlay is a prime example of this.  Let's look at it this way.
> If someone from Sunrise were to say "this ebuild is available in our
> overlay" in a comment, nobody would really have a problem.  Having
> someone with an @gentoo.org address setting "InOverlay" makes it look
> like Gentoo is endorsing the overlay.  Remember that when you use your
> @gentoo.org address, you're speaking for Gentoo in the user's eyes.
> Using "InOverlay" would be the same as someone from BMG (that happened
> to be a developer) doing it because it is in the BMG overlay.  It's
> simply not accurate.

It's exactly as accurate as the keyword description [1] is, i.e.:

<snip>
A case where someone is working on this maintained-needed ebuild in an
overlay to test their fixes before including it in an ebuild in the tree.
</snip>

So, be it BMG or sunrise or whatever else, it's an appropriate use of
that keyword, and there's nothing there suggesting that the overlay is
an official one.

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi



-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Harald van Dijk]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:09:24 +0200 Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because
> | he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over
> | another?
> 
> One unofficial project that has screwed up so badly that the council
> has had to step in and say no to it,

It's entirely possible that I missed some important message, but as far
as I know, council hasn't said either yes or no to it, and the overlay
as hosted on o.g.o is suspended only until a council decision is made.

> as opposed to an unofficial
> project that has not attracted complaints and that is being worked into
> the tree?

Quoting the original message:
"Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted
 overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them."

Please explain to me how any non-gentoo hosted overlay can possibly be
an exception to this.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Seemant Kulleen]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he
> *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another?

The jave "unofficial" overlay is well on its way to becoming an official
and officially hosted overlay.

> > This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast.
> > People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama.
> 
> Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message?

Not at all.  I've been back on the gentoo-dev list for three weeks, and
the actual "dev" part of it has been pretty much missing.  This list
would be more ideal as gentoo-rant,
gentoo-torture-every-reader-with-endless-threads,
gentoo-lets-not-get-along, gentoo-babies, gentoo-childishness, we can
come with a few more.

My personal view is apparently starting to be more public here, so I'll
be plain: I think developers needs to all seriously reconsider what they
are doing with Gentoo and why. I'm not advocating anything other than a
bit of introspection on why people do this to begin with.

In the past few weeks, I've seen devs get at each others' throats; and
worse still at users' throats.  And really, it's a little too much
already.

Thanks,

Seemant



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Seemant Kulleen]

Also, just so I'm clear on my stance on this:

I don't care one whit about whether those keywords are used in bugzilla
or not.  Keywords are a way to help bugzilla users use bugzilla.  As for
perceptions about it -- as long sunrise is clear on their pages that
they are absolutely not official as of yet, I don't think we run into
any issues, officially.  There may be users who do get that perception.
On the other hand, you will have people who walk by a sign that says
"sale today" and ask when exactly the sale is.  We can't, and should
not, hold everyone's hand.

Thanks,

Seemant

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Harald van Dijk]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he
> > *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another?
> 
> The jave "unofficial" overlay is well on its way to becoming an official
> and officially hosted overlay.

And once it is, it can be given special treatment.

> > > This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast.
> > > People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama.
> > 
> > Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message?
> 
> Not at all.  I've been back on the gentoo-dev list for three weeks, and
> the actual "dev" part of it has been pretty much missing.  This list
> would be more ideal as gentoo-rant,
> gentoo-torture-every-reader-with-endless-threads,
> gentoo-lets-not-get-along, gentoo-babies, gentoo-childishness, we can
> come with a few more.

Maybe discussions have been focused on policy more than development
itself, but for the most part (yes, there have been exceptions), they
have still been focused on Gentoo. You seem to be making it personal,
which is over the line for me.

> My personal view is apparently starting to be more public here, so I'll
> be plain: I think developers needs to all seriously reconsider what they
> are doing with Gentoo and why. I'm not advocating anything other than a
> bit of introspection on why people do this to begin with.

That is a good idea regardless.

> In the past few weeks, I've seen devs get at each others' throats; and
> worse still at users' throats.  And really, it's a little too much
> already.

Your frustration is understandable, but I think you took it out on the
wrong message, and very possibly the wrong person.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Patrick Lauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1638 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 16:40 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote:
> > Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I
> > grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an
> > 'unofficial overlay'.
> 
> No, this is about a project that was supposed to be suspended until
> its details have been hashed out.
> 
Just to take this to a humorous extreme - 
would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations?

I mean, the sundown overlay I've started on my server has nothing to do
with it (except that it has all the same files), and apart from
accidentally having the same users there is no relation implied.
Since it never was a Gentoo project and does explicitly say in big red
blinking letters that it is only supporting ebuilds for Gentoo-like
distributions you don't have any hook to get it disabled.

That would kill all those arguments while not changing any _facts_ about
sunrise. That's what bugs me, you're lawyering around, disputing
semantic border cases instead of doing anything I see as reasonable. You
can't stop sunrise from existing on non-Gentoo hardware, you can't make
the devs stop working on it, you could only pull it closer, let it run
on Gentoo hardware and influence it.
So you chose to not be able to influence it, but then complain when
people do what they want to do in their spare time, only tangentially
related to Gentoo. 

Now I'll just disappear for the weekend, don't flame too much in my
absence ...

Patrick
-- 
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Mike Doty]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
>> It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting.  This is what I
>> did.  I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is
>> willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put
>> forth yesterday.
> 
> I agree that it is devrel's place to help people find a compromise. I
> disagree that it is devrel's place to set general technical policy based
> on this compromise by saying "All non-Gentoo hosted overlays are subject
> to this" when the compromise does not involve all the relevant people.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
What you're missing here is that I did not make a technical decision.  I
implemented the councils recommendations in such a manner as to not piss
off either side too much.  If you're familiar with US leagalize, you
should view this as a temporary injunction.

I implore you and other interested developers to address the remaining
points through constructive discussion and then ask the council to make
a final decision.

Here are a list of points that I feel need more discussion:

1.  Different types of overlays: gentoo.org vs. non-gentoo.org and
developer focused vs. user focused.

2.  Appropriate use of bugzilla for overlays of all varieties.

3.  Appropriate use of www.gentoo.org/proj for overlays.


-- 
=======================================================
Mike Doty                      kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
Gentoo Developer Relations
Gentoo Recruitment Lead
Gentoo Infrastructure
GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:14:12 +0200 Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Just to take this to a humorous extreme - 
| would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations?

That's not a humourous extreme at all. That would be a good start. Now,
follow it up with a promise that something similar won't come along
under a different name and make the same mistakes.

| Now I'll just disappear for the weekend, don't flame too much in my
| absence ...

That would also be a good start.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Mike Doty]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
>> I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds
>> (not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying
>> that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it
>> is :)  I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the PHP
>> overlay, the webapps overlay...etc...
> 
> No, because those are now hosted by Gentoo.
> 
>> Look, I was on IRC yesterday, the whole thing was a mess.  For once I'm
>> not going to step on devrels balls for this one.  Someone had to do
>> something.  For once I'm tired of *someone acting* and then getting
>> nailed for it because its not their place.  Am I thrilled with the
>> outcome?  No not really.  Apparently neither is Jakub.  Thats all fine.
>>  Can always overturn it later.  Or we can discuss it endlessly here with
>> no outcome, or we can make the council decide on what the proper use of
>> bugzilla is.  Or we can all realize that we can't get our way all the
>> time and compromise with other projects*.
> 
> Yes, but as Seemant said, all those affected in the decision should be
> involved (or at least represented) in the compromise.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
You're right, not everyone was represented.  It was a response to the
problem at hand.

If the other overlay people feel that they need to be represented, I
will hold a 2nd meeting to address their specific issues.  Assuming that
a significant amount of overlay "managers" want, I will hold this
meeting at Sunday 1800 UTC in #gentoo-devrel on freenode.  Please post
your specific problems on this (sub) thread by Saturday 1800 UTC so I at
least have 24 hours to understand and ask questions before the meeting.

-- 
=======================================================
Mike Doty                      kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
Gentoo Developer Relations
Gentoo Recruitment Lead
Gentoo Infrastructure
GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Seemant Kulleen]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 18:07 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he
> > > *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another?
> > 
> > The jave "unofficial" overlay is well on its way to becoming an official
> > and officially hosted overlay.
> 
> And once it is, it can be given special treatment.

We're talking around each other, let's stop.   I'm not advocating that
the overlay keywords for sunrise cease -- as I stated in another part of
this thread: I do not care one way or the other.  I don't think it is
appropriate, however, to make other projects hostage because you don't
like what's going on with your pet project.

> Maybe discussions have been focused on policy more than development
> itself, but for the most part (yes, there have been exceptions), they
> have still been focused on Gentoo. You seem to be making it personal,
> which is over the line for me.

I'm pretty sure I have not made it personal.  I'm not addressing any one
in particular on these, nor do I have anything against any parties (or
for any parties for that matter).  I'm sorry if you took my words that
way, that was certainly not the intent from this side.

> Your frustration is understandable, but I think you took it out on the
> wrong message, and very possibly the wrong person.

I know what I did, and they were both the correct target.  We can take
this off-list and include Jakub himself in it, if you're dying to know.
I think Jakub himself knows full well *exactly* where I came from and
why.

Thanks,

Seemant


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]

[Harald van Dijk]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:33:21PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 18:07 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > > You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he
> > > > *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another?
> > > 
> > > The jave "unofficial" overlay is well on its way to becoming an official
> > > and officially hosted overlay.
> > 
> > And once it is, it can be given special treatment.
> 
> We're talking around each other, let's stop.   I'm not advocating that
> the overlay keywords for sunrise cease -- as I stated in another part of
> this thread: I do not care one way or the other.  I don't think it is
> appropriate, however, to make other projects hostage because you don't
> like what's going on with your pet project.

Agreed, but I don't think there's any reading of the original message
that allows continuing use of Gentoo's bugzilla for Java's overlay until
it is hosted by Gentoo, so I don't consider this Jakub's decision.

> > Maybe discussions have been focused on policy more than development
> > itself, but for the most part (yes, there have been exceptions), they
> > have still been focused on Gentoo. You seem to be making it personal,
> > which is over the line for me.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have not made it personal.  I'm not addressing any one
> in particular on these, nor do I have anything against any parties (or
> for any parties for that matter).  I'm sorry if you took my words that
> way, that was certainly not the intent from this side.

It was mostly the "gentoo-babies" reference to this list that I
considered name-calling and a bit too much, even if it wasn't directed
at any single person in particular. If I misunderstood you, sorry.

> > Your frustration is understandable, but I think you took it out on the
> > wrong message, and very possibly the wrong person.
> 
> I know what I did, and they were both the correct target.  We can take
> this off-list and include Jakub himself in it, if you're dying to know.
> I think Jakub himself knows full well *exactly* where I came from and
> why.

If there's something between you and Jakub that I'm not aware of, I'll
stay out of that. It doesn't affect my opinion on this specific topic,
though.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

[Seemant Kulleen]

I've been thinking about Solar's email.  I believe Solar is actually
very correct in his assessment.

I think I'll recant my initial statement about devrel.  To KingTaco and
the gang: my apologies, you guys did the right thing at the time.

Thanks,

Seemant


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Andrew Cowie]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 10:28 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> Now, the java team is an official Gentoo project...

And even more pertinent (and a point that got lost in all this, sadly):

The gentoo-java's migration effort is NOT an overlay in the sense that
breakmygentoo or sunrise are. It is merely a branch.

If we were using a distributed version control tool, or even subversion
for the tree rather than good ol' CVS, I'm quite sure that all of their
work would have been done on a branch inside the primary tree's revision
control system, rather than externally in a (whoa) subversion repo of
their own.

Oh well. I just hope this doesn't affect nichoj and karltk and the
others too badly as they finish up their year+ of effort to complete
this branch and merge it back into HEAD.

AfC
Sydney


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1511 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:14:12 +0200 Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Just to take this to a humorous extreme - 
> | would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations?
> 
> That's not a humourous extreme at all. That would be a good start. Now,
> follow it up with a promise that something similar won't come along
> under a different name and make the same mistakes.

Ciaran: I think you're forgetting that Patrick's normal line of thinking
is "act first, ask questions later" :)

Patrick: I think you're missing the point of why your project was
suspended in the first place. You're taking every comment that's been
made against it as a personal attack and have been ignorant in *all* the
technical details. If you would open your eyes and mind a little you'll
see that there are better ways to making your project work better. I
don't think continuing it on unofficial hardware without fixing the
details is the best idea. You're just digging your hole deeper and not
fixing the issues we had in the first place. Please reconsider what
you're doing.

> | Now I'll just disappear for the weekend, don't flame too much in my
> | absence ...
> 
> That would also be a good start.

Indeed.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[James Potts]

There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
currently unofficial.  Therefore, technically, if it is against the
rules for projects and/or devs to use bugzilla for unofficial
overlays, then it is against the rules for the java team to use
bugzilla for their migration-overlay.

As for the fact that the migration overlay is in the process of being
moved to o.g.o, "in the process of" doesn't mean it's already been
done, and until it's finished, the above statement stands.

Props *and* apologies to the java team for this, but it looks like you
need to move the overlay *before* you finish the migration process
now.

As for java being a project and sunrise not being a project, if it was
the intention of devrel to stop unofficial *projects* from using
bugzilla, then that's how they should've worded their ruling.

--Arek

P.S.  I do beleive that devrel may have been a little out of line in
doing this.  People need to think about the consequences of making
(potentially far-reaching) rulings like the one made in this case.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Patrick Lauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3186 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 21:38 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:14:12 +0200 Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > | Just to take this to a humorous extreme - 
> > | would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations?
> > 
> > That's not a humourous extreme at all. That would be a good start. Now,
> > follow it up with a promise that something similar won't come along
> > under a different name and make the same mistakes.
Ah well, Ciaran doing his nice troll impression again. How I missed that ...

> Ciaran: I think you're forgetting that Patrick's normal line of thinking
> is "act first, ask questions later" :)
Nah, I just don't want to wait 18 months for anonCVS, took me ~6h to get it working on my box.
Genstef was a bit optimistic in starting the sunrise overlay without
asking first, but I guess those people he would have asked might not
have seen a problem with it.

> Patrick: I think you're missing the point of why your project 
It's not my project. It's just one of the projects I like and which I
support where I can.
Technically I'm not even _part_ of this project, just a random
lurker ...
> was
> suspended in the first place. You're taking every comment that's been
> made against it as a personal attack and have been ignorant in *all* the
> technical details. 
Well ... if the technical details are "it will cause the end of the
world" it's hard to evaluate them to more than "random noise that can be
ignored". I really don't see how such an overlay would cause more
problems than providing the ebuilds unsorted, untested and without any
QA checks in bugzilla (which is official hardware, eh?). If you had
looked at sunrise recently you'd have noticed that those that work on it
try to do their best and reach a quite high quality standard. So you get
fixed, quality checked ebuilds, dev candidates and happy users.

> If you would open your eyes and mind a little you'll
> see that there are better ways to making your project work better. 
I could say the same to you - there's always room for improvement. 

> I
> don't think continuing it on unofficial hardware without fixing the
> details is the best idea. 
That's the only way to not have it die due to ressource starvation. Get
the people to not work on it for 3 months and noone will remember that
it even existed (which might be the goal of some)

> You're just digging your hole deeper and not
> fixing the issues we had in the first place. Please reconsider what
> you're doing.

I think the strong reactions from people like jakub (which now force 
the java overlay to do a stupid move just because otherwise they get
problems with bugs!?) show that we have a strong disagreement here
with one side responding to every demand and the other side just making
more demands. But eh, I'm not even part of Sunrise, so I probably
shouldn't even care.
 
> > | Now I'll just disappear for the weekend, don't flame too much in my
> > | absence ... 
> > That would also be a good start.
> Indeed.
Sorry to disappoint you :-)
-- 
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Luca Barbato]

Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Sorry to disappoint you :-)

There are times for action and times for meditation, mix them correctly...

Also remember that rarely we need to take quick action or the world will
fall, "think twice, do it once" is a good way to avoid problems.

sunrise has lots of potential BUT some details must be investigated.
Ciaran wrote that the project should fix the issues raised, not change
name and place.

Probably getting it right on the first stance spending just a bit more
of time in order to get it running better would take less than discuss
to put it on hold, discuss on how unfair the people requesting it were,
discuss about how to keep it alive and such.

Sounds that out of world as reasoning?

that said, genstef do you mind starting from scratch describing the idea
and the implementation details (taking in account point raised)?

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:07:52AM -0500, James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.

_Technically_ probably maybe, but please read what already has been
said about it in this thread - there are big differences between those
to projects, such as the sunrise being technically suspended as an
official project and the java project not.
Anyway, all of this (including my reply, sorry) already has been
discussed in this thread before, no need to repeat history. ;-)

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Simon Stelling]

James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.  Therefore, technically, if it is against the
> rules for projects and/or devs to use bugzilla for unofficial
> overlays, then it is against the rules for the java team to use
> bugzilla for their migration-overlay.
> 
> As for the fact that the migration overlay is in the process of being
> moved to o.g.o, "in the process of" doesn't mean it's already been
> done, and until it's finished, the above statement stands.
> 
> Props *and* apologies to the java team for this, but it looks like you
> need to move the overlay *before* you finish the migration process
> now.

Question is, do we care about blindly following a policy that obviously was
targetting at something completely different, or do we care about getting stuff
done?

There's nothing as unproductive as political correctness.

Just my 0.02 SFr,

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5220 bytes --]

Patrick Lauer wrote:

>> was
>> suspended in the first place. You're taking every comment that's been
>> made against it as a personal attack and have been ignorant in *all* the
>> technical details. 
> Well ... if the technical details are "it will cause the end of the
> world" it's hard to evaluate them to more than "random noise that can be
> ignored". I really don't see how such an overlay would cause more
> problems than providing the ebuilds unsorted, untested and without any
> QA checks in bugzilla (which is official hardware, eh?). If you had
> looked at sunrise recently you'd have noticed that those that work on it
> try to do their best and reach a quite high quality standard. So you get
> fixed, quality checked ebuilds, dev candidates and happy users.

If all you saw was a bunch of 'noise' then I'm afraid you're not seeing
the whole picture then. I admit there was *some* noise, but a good chunk
 of it had excellent technical details. I fail to see how your
assessment is factual until you prove to me exact technical points that
were viewed as 'end of the world noise'. If its that hard to evaluate,
then perhaps you should ask your peers on their opinions on the
technical details. It never hurts to get a second opinion on something
if you're unsure.

>> If you would open your eyes and mind a little you'll
>> see that there are better ways to making your project work better. 
> I could say the same to you - there's always room for improvement. 

I'm not the one making excuses about facts and calling it 'noise'
without proving it as such.

>> I
>> don't think continuing it on unofficial hardware without fixing the
>> details is the best idea. 
> That's the only way to not have it die due to ressource starvation. Get
> the people to not work on it for 3 months and noone will remember that
> it even existed (which might be the goal of some)

What the heck does resource starvation have to do improving the project
idea and fixing it? Moving it and 'calling it good' isn't the same as
'lets stop this whole thing and look at all the points made by our
developers'. If you really think that the project will die in 3 months
because its not online, then perhaps you should reconsider the
scope/goal of the project. You can accomplish a lot if you work out the
RFC for the idea ahead of time. It would have solved all the issues
brought up in the last few weeks instead of this constant bickering and
childless recants. What hurt will happen if you halt the project for a
month or so to come up with a better idea? I'd say if we could come up
with a better solution that makes us all happy, lets do it.

>> You're just digging your hole deeper and not
>> fixing the issues we had in the first place. Please reconsider what
>> you're doing.
> 
> I think the strong reactions from people like jakub (which now force 
> the java overlay to do a stupid move just because otherwise they get
> problems with bugs!?) show that we have a strong disagreement here
> with one side responding to every demand and the other side just making
> more demands. But eh, I'm not even part of Sunrise, so I probably
> shouldn't even care.

You wouldn't have to deal with the 'demands' if you had come up with an
RFC in the first place and ironed out the details. Instead you've taken
a good chunk of everything mentioned as a wrong implementation and
decided that its noise and ignored it completely. Has the idea of "Hey,
a lot of people think we're doing this the wrong way. Maybe we should
stop the project, work out the details like we should have, and possibly
regain some trust within our developer community? Then after that, we
can open it back up again?" crossed your mind?

I fail to see the logic in this attempt of ignoring technical details.
If you don't know how to communicate well in a technical discussion,
just say it or look to your peers for help. There's no need in coming up
with these outlandish assumptions to make it look like you're trying to
contribute to the technical discussion. I have yet to see any of your
responses to show that you have any intentions on dealing with the
technical discussions. The more I see is you trying make a fight out of
this while my goal is to iron out the technical details before it goes live.

Yes, sometimes it takes a while to get that done, but doesn't it make
sense to do it right the *first* time than do deal with the crap you've
delt with in the last few weeks? This all could have been avoided if you
had written out an RFC and asked for comments on it *before hand*. Don't
you agree?

And please please please ... Keep your responses to a technical level
and don't bring in personal issues. I have tried to keep my reply with
that in mind. If you have personal issues with my reply, then please
reply to me in private as we don't need to have all of -dev seeing those
issues.

That is all :-)

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[James Potts]

On 6/24/06, Wernfried Haas <amne@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:07:52AM -0500, James Potts wrote:
> > There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> > migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> > currently unofficial.
>
> _Technically_ probably maybe, but please read what already has been
> said about it in this thread - there are big differences between those
> to projects, such as the sunrise being technically suspended as an
> official project and the java project not.
> Anyway, all of this (including my reply, sorry) already has been
> discussed in this thread before, no need to repeat history. ;-)
>
Let me be clear on this:  From what I understand, the rule as written
prevents unofficial overlays from using certain fields in bugzilla.
It says nothing about the status of the project(s) behind such
overlays.  So the argument that this should not apply to the java team
because the project is still official, and sunrise is not, is bogus.
This ruling applies to overlays, not projects.

On 6/24/06, Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Question is, do we care about blindly following a policy that obviously was
> targetting at something completely different, or do we care about getting stuff
> done?
>
> There's nothing as unproductive as political correctness.
>
> Just my 0.02 SFr,

I hate to put it to you this way, but if you give people an inch,
they'll take a mile.  Yes, political correctnes is unproductive.  This
is why decisions like the one made here need to be thought out better
before being made.  But once the decision is made, it should be
applied equally, or not at all.

As for the decision that led to this mess, I'd like to see it on the
agenda for the next Council meeting.  I really don't agree with it (or
rather the way it was worded), and I can see others don't either.
Unfortunately, I don't know if I have the authority to request this,
since I'm not a dev.

--Arek
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1169 bytes --]

On Saturday 24 June 2006 00:07, James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.  Therefore, technically, if it is against the
> rules for projects and/or devs to use bugzilla for unofficial
> overlays.  then it is against the rules for the java team to use 
> bugzilla for their migration-overlay.

what rules ?

> As for the fact that the migration overlay is in the process of being
> moved to o.g.o, "in the process of" doesn't mean it's already been
> done, and until it's finished, the above statement stands.
>
> Props *and* apologies to the java team for this, but it looks like you
> need to move the overlay *before* you finish the migration process
> now.

the java overlay has existed far longer than overlays.g.o.  to demand they 
halt all development and they move their stuff from gentooexperimental.org to 
overlays.g.o so they can suddenly be allowed to use bugzilla/gentoo infra is 
just asine.

java devs are getting work done, dont sit there and waste their time with 
rules such as this.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Simon Stelling]

James Potts wrote:
> I hate to put it to you this way, but if you give people an inch,
> they'll take a mile.  Yes, political correctnes is unproductive.  This
> is why decisions like the one made here need to be thought out better
> before being made.  But once the decision is made, it should be
> applied equally, or not at all.

"If you give people an inch, they'll take a mile." What's there to take? 
Freedom to work on stuff that they like to work on?

> As for the decision that led to this mess, I'd like to see it on the
> agenda for the next Council meeting.  I really don't agree with it (or
> rather the way it was worded), and I can see others don't either.
> Unfortunately, I don't know if I have the authority to request this,
> since I'm not a dev.

Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This 
is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to 
'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based 
on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its 
wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important, 
not the wording.

This wording vs. intentions makes this whole thing really ridiculous. It 
makes you look like being nitpicking, even if you aren't.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

Simon Stelling wrote:
> Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This
> is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to
> 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based
> on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its
> wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important,
> not the wording.

That's one reason I would like to greatly simplify the "laws" around
here -- less opportunity to argue that the wording doesn't explicitly
prohibit something that's obviously wrong and/or stupid.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1133 bytes --]

On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 09:41 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This 
> is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to 
> 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based 
> on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its 
> wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important, 
> not the wording.
> 
> This wording vs. intentions makes this whole thing really ridiculous. It 
> makes you look like being nitpicking, even if you aren't.

This is pretty much my feelings exactly on many of our policies.  We
shouldn't *have* to document every single thing that someone can
possibly do wrong.  We should be able to have a group that can make
decisions based on the intent of the original policy.  It would also
make it quite a bit easier to keep up with the policies if we aren't
having to constantly go back and re-read them for all of the changes.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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