[gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1354 bytes --]

Hello, everyone.

It has recently came to my attention that things are quite bad with
the Sunrise project [1] lately. Most of the developers have left
the project, and it seems that the contributors have done the same.
The public reviewed repository has major QA issues and hasn't been
updated since mid-2015. The last non-developer commit to the private
repo also seems to come from mid-2015, followed only by a number of
removals and fixes done by Gentoo developers.

Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to
announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it?
If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors
and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo
via proxy-maint?

I should point out that Sunrise has lost a lot of popularity to
proxy-maint, then also to GitHub pull requests (and the two combined).
The developers involved with those provide quite a good review
workflow, with the extra advantage of getting packages straight
into ::gentoo. I don't know how many users would be interested
in keeping them in ::sunrise if they could have them straight
in ::gentoo with similar (if not less...) effort.

Your thoughts?

[1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1779 bytes --]

In my humble opinion, sunrise is a needless layer of bureaucracy to getting
new packages into the tree.  Personlly, I think it's not a bad idea for new
packages to be submitted as enhancements directly on bugzilla, possibly
CCing any relevant projects who could provide a review.


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> It has recently came to my attention that things are quite bad with
> the Sunrise project [1] lately. Most of the developers have left
> the project, and it seems that the contributors have done the same.
> The public reviewed repository has major QA issues and hasn't been
> updated since mid-2015. The last non-developer commit to the private
> repo also seems to come from mid-2015, followed only by a number of
> removals and fixes done by Gentoo developers.
>
> Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to
> announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it?
> If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors
> and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo
> via proxy-maint?
>
> I should point out that Sunrise has lost a lot of popularity to
> proxy-maint, then also to GitHub pull requests (and the two combined).
> The developers involved with those provide quite a good review
> workflow, with the extra advantage of getting packages straight
> into ::gentoo. I don't know how many users would be interested
> in keeping them in ::sunrise if they could have them straight
> in ::gentoo with similar (if not less...) effort.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2398 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Your thoughts?

I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better than
sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the latter.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Your thoughts?
> I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better than
> sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the latter.
The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with the
500+ packages in sunrise.

I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need for
something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt into
the tree.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1088 bytes --]

How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
elsewhere as resources permit?

Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Your thoughts?
> > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better than
> > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the latter.
> The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with the
> 500+ packages in sunrise.
>
> I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need for
> something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt into
> the tree.
>
> --
> Robin Hugh Johnson
> Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
> E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1621 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Ian Stakenvicius]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1513 bytes --]

On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org
> <mailto:robbat2@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>     On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>     > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org <mailto:mgorny@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>>     > > Your thoughts?
>>     > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better than
>>     > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the latter.
>>     The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with the
>>     500+ packages in sunrise.
>> 
>>     I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need for
>>     something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt into
>>     the tree.
>
> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
> elsewhere as resources permit?
> 
> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.
> 

Isn't that effectively where we are already at though?  If the last
push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already.
 I guess we just need to announce it..?

As for what to do with the packages that exist already....  what about
adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of:

"Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package
please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a
priority for migration"

..or similar?



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

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 7 czerwca 2016 16:16:38 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org
>> <mailto:robbat2@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>     On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>>     > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny
><mgorny@gentoo.org <mailto:mgorny@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>>>     > > Your thoughts?
>>>     > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better
>than
>>>     > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the
>latter.
>>>     The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with
>the
>>>     500+ packages in sunrise.
>>> 
>>>     I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need
>for
>>>     something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt
>into
>>>     the tree.
>>
>> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
>> elsewhere as resources permit?
>> 
>> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.
>> 
>
>Isn't that effectively where we are already at though?  If the last
>push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already.
> I guess we just need to announce it..?
>
>As for what to do with the packages that exist already....  what about
>adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of:
>
>"Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package
>please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a
>priority for migration"
>
>..or similar?

Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same effect?

Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so people can get the newest ebuilds.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[james]

On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 7 czerwca 2016 16:16:38 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>> On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org
>>> <mailto:robbat2@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>>>      > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny
>> <mgorny@gentoo.org <mailto:mgorny@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>>>>      > > Your thoughts?
>>>>      > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better
>> than
>>>>      > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the
>> latter.
>>>>      The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with
>> the
>>>>      500+ packages in sunrise.
>>>>
>>>>      I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need
>> for
>>>>      something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt
>> into
>>>>      the tree.
>>>
>>> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
>>> elsewhere as resources permit?
>>>
>>> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that effectively where we are already at though?  If the last
>> push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already.
>> I guess we just need to announce it..?
>>
>> As for what to do with the packages that exist already....  what about
>> adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of:
>>
>> "Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package
>> please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a
>> priority for migration"
>>
>> ..or similar?
>
> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same effect?
>
> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so people can get the newest ebuilds.


Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that 
lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[M. J. Everitt]

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


On 07/06/16 16:44, james wrote:
> On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same
>> effect?
>>
>> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so
>> people can get the newest ebuilds.
>
> Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that
> lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?
>
>
A year is a very short time in software terms .. maybe 5 years ... !!
But freezing it, with the intention of removing from repos.xml in 5
years time seems reasonable to me.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 968 bytes --]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:56:16 +0100
"M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:

> On 07/06/16 16:44, james wrote:
> > On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:  
> >> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same
> >> effect?
> >>
> >> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so
> >> people can get the newest ebuilds.  
> >
> > Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that
> > lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?
> >
> >  
> A year is a very short time in software terms .. maybe 5 years ... !!
> But freezing it, with the intention of removing from repos.xml in 5
> years time seems reasonable to me.

I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering
the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with
similar breakage were already removed.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 767 bytes --]

On 07/06/16 16:37, Michał Górny wrote:
> I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering
> the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with
> similar breakage were already removed.
>
In which case, we should get a notice out post-haste ...

My concern is for those people using sunrise packages (in whatever
broken state) who might suddenly discover they have completly lost
access to the overlay 'overnight'. Whilst I'm not expecting the
server/repo suddenly to disappear .. there should be a planned migration
path for any users lingering on packages in this overlay to get the
package into maintainership of some form if at all possible. As such it
remains a semi-official Gentoo repository ..

MJE


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[grozin]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> My concern is for those people using sunrise packages (in whatever
> broken state) who might suddenly discover they have completly lost
> access to the overlay 'overnight'. Whilst I'm not expecting the
> server/repo suddenly to disappear .. there should be a planned migration
> path for any users lingering on packages in this overlay to get the
> package into maintainership of some form if at all possible. As such it
> remains a semi-official Gentoo repository ..
One example: I have 1 package installed from sunrise, app-misc/gpspoint. I 
used it regularly until recently (after buying a good android phone, I use 
osmand on it instead of my old garmin navigator; but this navigator is 
still working, and I might want to download some track from it, in which 
case I'll need gpspoint). OK, I can commit it to the main tree. But I'm 
sure there are other working packages in sunrise, too.

Andrey

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 6/7/16 11:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:56:16 +0100
> "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/06/16 16:44, james wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:  
>>>> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same
>>>> effect?
>>>>
>>>> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so
>>>> people can get the newest ebuilds.  
>>>
>>> Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that
>>> lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?
>>>
>>>  
>> A year is a very short time in software terms .. maybe 5 years ... !!
>> But freezing it, with the intention of removing from repos.xml in 5
>> years time seems reasonable to me.
> 
> I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering
> the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with
> similar breakage were already removed.
> 

It should not be used as an overlay.  It has not been updated for nearly
a year and if its frozen as an archive then all the more reason.  There
should also be huge warnings in the README.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering
> the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with
> similar breakage were already removed.

Maybe do a regular old "Packages for grabs" thread to see if anyone
wants to salvage something? Could maybe even do a news message on the
site to get more eyeballs on it.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 6/6/16 5:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> It has recently came to my attention that things are quite bad with
> the Sunrise project [1] lately. Most of the developers have left
> the project, and it seems that the contributors have done the same.
> The public reviewed repository has major QA issues and hasn't been
> updated since mid-2015. The last non-developer commit to the private
> repo also seems to come from mid-2015, followed only by a number of
> removals and fixes done by Gentoo developers.
> 
> Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to
> announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it?
> If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors
> and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo
> via proxy-maint?
> 
> I should point out that Sunrise has lost a lot of popularity to
> proxy-maint, then also to GitHub pull requests (and the two combined).
> The developers involved with those provide quite a good review
> workflow, with the extra advantage of getting packages straight
> into ::gentoo. I don't know how many users would be interested
> in keeping them in ::sunrise if they could have them straight
> in ::gentoo with similar (if not less...) effort.
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise
> 

Its time to retire the project.  Put out a last call for anyone to adopt
it.  If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive.
Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so.

sunrise was a great idea.  Debian has a similar project (I forget the
name).  But projects that depend on a particular workflow are going to
go the way of the dinosaurs when the next vcs comes around.  Today its
github, tomorrow its ???.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 321 bytes --]

On 07/06/16 10:29, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Its time to retire the project.  Put out a last call for anyone to adopt
> it.  If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive.
> Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so.
>
>
+1 - This sounds like a fairly sensible solution.

MJE


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Sam Jorna]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 538 bytes --]

On 07/06/16 19:29, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Its time to retire the project.  Put out a last call for anyone to adopt
> it.  If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive.
> Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so.

This seems reasonable - it allows packages that people want actively
maintained to be picked up, and still leaves the rest available in the
overlay outside of gentoo.git so they don't cause any major dramas.

-- 
Sam Jorna (wraeth) <wraeth@gentoo.org>
GnuPG Key: D6180C26


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Matthew Marchese]

On 06/07/2016 02:29 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:

> Its time to retire the project.  Put out a last call for anyone to adopt
> it.  If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive.
> Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so.
I agree. We should be a better job at trimming the fat in various ways.
I just looked at this project recently and was scared.
-maffy

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 511 bytes --]

On 08/06/16 04:13, Matthew Marchese wrote:
> On 06/07/2016 02:29 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
>> Its time to retire the project.  Put out a last call for anyone to adopt
>> it.  If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive.
>> Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so.
> I agree. We should be a better job at trimming the fat in various ways.
> I just looked at this project recently and was scared.
> -maffy
>
It's fair to say, it is pretty scary, maff ... :D


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Andreas K. Huettel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

>
> Your thoughts?
> 
> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise

Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were *very* 
strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo main tree 
- - and a definite frustration threshold that one had to overcome. With a couple 
of packages in Sunrise, doing the quizzes was a piece of cake though.

That said...

If there's no activity anymore, we definitely should remove the overlay from 
Layman and (important!) remove the mentions of Sunrise from our web pages 
(e.g., "contributing to Gentoo").

We now have functioning and active alternatives, see proxy-maintainers.

- -- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.1
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=X+id
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Mike Gilbert]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were *very*
> strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo main tree
> - - and a definite frustration threshold that one had to overcome. With a couple
> of packages in Sunrise, doing the quizzes was a piece of cake though.

As someone who did some user contribution to Sunrise, I never really
liked it, and I think it was a terrible way to introduce people to the
dev side of Gentoo. That workflow just plain sucked, and the "better
QA standards" really just amounted to nitpicking trivial issues.

I am very glad we are giving people an easier way to contribute these days.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1104 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:31:46 +0200 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were *very* 
> strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo main tree 
> - - and a definite frustration threshold that one had to overcome. With a couple 
> of packages in Sunrise, doing the quizzes was a piece of cake though.
> 
> That said...
> 
> If there's no activity anymore, we definitely should remove the overlay from 
> Layman and (important!) remove the mentions of Sunrise from our web pages 
> (e.g., "contributing to Gentoo").

I agree that sunrise should be retired, but this must be done
gracefully, because people (including myself) are still using some
packages from it.

A grace period (between read-only state and removal from layman and
other listings) should be at least one year, maybe several years
as was suggested in another e-mail here. This way people will be
able to safely migrate and pick any packages of interest from
sunrise to the main tree or other repos. 

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 8 czerwca 2016 09:05:37 CEST, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:31:46 +0200 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were
>*very* 
>> strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo
>main tree 
>> - - and a definite frustration threshold that one had to overcome.
>With a couple 
>> of packages in Sunrise, doing the quizzes was a piece of cake though.
>> 
>> That said...
>> 
>> If there's no activity anymore, we definitely should remove the
>overlay from 
>> Layman and (important!) remove the mentions of Sunrise from our web
>pages 
>> (e.g., "contributing to Gentoo").
>
>I agree that sunrise should be retired, but this must be done
>gracefully, because people (including myself) are still using some
>packages from it.
>
>A grace period (between read-only state and removal from layman and
>other listings) should be at least one year, maybe several years
>as was suggested in another e-mail here. This way people will be
>able to safely migrate and pick any packages of interest from
>sunrise to the main tree or other repos. 

It is read-only for a year already, so I'll just remove it:-P.

But seriously, if you really care to keep it, go and fix it to the point of not failing hard.

>
>Best regards,
>Andrew Savchenko


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Patrick Lauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1126 bytes --]

On 06/07/2016 10:31 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> > Your thoughts?
>
> > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise
>
> Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were
> *very*
> strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo
> main tree
But here's the funny thing:

While there was a syntactical review that made these ebuilds wonderfully
strict no one seems to have compile-tested them. So when I ran a
test-build over all of sunrise about half the packages had invalid
SRC_URI, didn't compile, patches didn't apply, etc.

So from my perspective it was *useless* enforcement of arbitrary rules
with little to show for it.

> - and a definite frustration threshold that one had to overcome. With
> a couple
> of packages in Sunrise, doing the quizzes was a piece of cake though.
>
> That said...
>
> If there's no activity anymore, we definitely should remove the
> overlay from
> Layman and (important!) remove the mentions of Sunrise from our web pages
> (e.g., "contributing to Gentoo").
>
> We now have functioning and active alternatives, see proxy-maintainers.
>
>



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1798 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Michał Górny schrieb:
> Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to
> announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it?
> If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors
> and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo
> via proxy-maint?

I agree that the Sunrise repository should be removed from 
repositories.xml. I don't know if there is any way of informing users 
beforehand of this change happening. If not, then a grace period is 
probably pointless.

Moving ebuilds to proxy-maint and ::gentoo is complicated by the fact 
that there is no concept of maintainer in sunrise. (This is also why we 
were stricter than the portage tree, because the original committer 
might not be around when the next person would have to make changes.)
As every package in sunrise has an associated maintainer-wanted bug, it 
would be good to post a message to each such bug to encourage interested 
users to contact proxy-maint.

> I should point out that Sunrise has lost a lot of popularity to
> proxy-maint, then also to GitHub pull requests (and the two combined).
> The developers involved with those provide quite a good review
> workflow, with the extra advantage of getting packages straight
> into ::gentoo. I don't know how many users would be interested
> in keeping them in ::sunrise if they could have them straight
> in ::gentoo with similar (if not less...) effort.
>
> Your thoughts?

I do think there is value in having a user repository. There are 
different ways to manage it: curated, non-curated, only trusted users 
get access, everybody gets access, etc. Sunrise is on one end of the 
spectrum and bgo-overlay probably on the other. The Sunrise approach 
ultimately did not scale and hinged on developers doing most of the work 
that proxy-maint would do but ending up in a much less visible repository.

Maybe an approach similar to what grobian initially suggested for the 
portage tree git migration[0] would be a good idea: Have individual 
user-managed repositories for packages, and an automated script that 
merges them. But of course someone needs to step up and make it happen.

> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise

Until further steps are decided, I'll add a statement that the project 
is inactive and refer people to proxy-maintainers.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

[0] 
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/753620a99ab88b9525a253590617db3c

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Dale]

Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
> I agree that the Sunrise repository should be removed from
> repositories.xml. I don't know if there is any way of informing users
> beforehand of this change happening. If not, then a grace period is
> probably pointless.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>
> [0]
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/753620a99ab88b9525a253590617db3c
>
>


Just a thought here.  Is there a way to do a news announcement for
people that have a package installed from the overlay?  If that could be
done, then users who don't use it won't be bothered by it but users who
do will get the news announcement about its future.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Dale  wrote:

> Just a thought here.  Is there a way to do a news announcement for
> people that have a package installed from the overlay?  If that
> could be done, then users who don't use it won't be bothered by it
> but users who do will get the news announcement about its future.

There can be news items not only for the gentoo tree, but for any
overlay. Simply place them into metadata/news/ of that repository.

Conditional display on any "package installed from the overlay" won't
be possible, though.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 844 bytes --]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:30:51 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Dale  wrote:  
> 
> > Just a thought here.  Is there a way to do a news announcement for
> > people that have a package installed from the overlay?  If that
> > could be done, then users who don't use it won't be bothered by it
> > but users who do will get the news announcement about its future.  
> 
> There can be news items not only for the gentoo tree, but for any
> overlay. Simply place them into metadata/news/ of that repository.
> 
> Conditional display on any "package installed from the overlay" won't
> be possible, though.

But the news item would have to be placed in the unreviewed repository,
and pass a review from Sunrise team :-P.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Ian Stakenvicius]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 674 bytes --]

On 08/06/16 08:30 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Dale  wrote:
> 
>> Just a thought here.  Is there a way to do a news announcement for
>> people that have a package installed from the overlay?  If that
>> could be done, then users who don't use it won't be bothered by it
>> but users who do will get the news announcement about its future.
> 
> There can be news items not only for the gentoo tree, but for any
> overlay. Simply place them into metadata/news/ of that repository.
> 
> Conditional display on any "package installed from the overlay" won't
> be possible, though.

A package.mask in the overlay sort of does that...




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

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1336 bytes --]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:04:02 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to
> > announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it?
> > If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors
> > and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo
> > via proxy-maint?  
> 
> I agree that the Sunrise repository should be removed from 
> repositories.xml. I don't know if there is any way of informing users 
> beforehand of this change happening. If not, then a grace period is 
> probably pointless.
> 
> Moving ebuilds to proxy-maint and ::gentoo is complicated by the fact 
> that there is no concept of maintainer in sunrise. (This is also why we 
> were stricter than the portage tree, because the original committer 
> might not be around when the next person would have to make changes.)
> As every package in sunrise has an associated maintainer-wanted bug, it 
> would be good to post a message to each such bug to encourage interested 
> users to contact proxy-maint.

Thanks for this idea! I'm going to collect the bug nos now, and leave
an appropriate comment everywhere.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]