From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18976 invoked by uid 1002); 26 Jun 2003 18:41:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 15520 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 18:41:14 -0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:41:38 -0600 From: Daniel Robbins To: Paul de Vrieze Cc: gentoo-core@gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20030626184138.GA7264@inventor.gentoo.org> References: <3EFA47A7.5080608@gentoo.org> <20030626115612.GA3681@gonzo.peterjohanson.com> <20030626052852.1c3037fa.seemant@gentoo.org> <200306262028.36599.pauldv@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306262028.36599.pauldv@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Gentoo Technologies, Inc. Subject: [gentoo-dev] Portage features implementation X-Archives-Salt: a9bee7df-04dd-461f-8372-3c1b9a1b44f4 X-Archives-Hash: 1b8c3f4308230529931801bf1fbf79cb --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:28:23PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > Personally I have only one issue that could be addressed. It concerns por= tage.=20 > There are many features that portage will implement someday and that have= =20 > allready been identified. Many of those TODO's have been there a long tim= e.=20 > While I know that it is necessary to keep portage stable, and I know that= =20 > adding features is much work, I would like to know the status of those=20 > features. Me too :) In our existing management structure, you'll see that carpaski is the operational manager for portage, and as such will be responsible for providing weekly updates on the status of his project, just like all managers will. These status updates will be publicly available and linked to on our Web site. You'll also see that I specifically listed a "package research" sub-project that will be involved in architecting new functionality for Portage. Also, if other projects or sub-projects need functionality in Portage, they can inform their respective top-level managers about these needed features. Then it's the the responsibility of that top-level manager to communicate t= hese needs to carpaski at the top-level manager meeting, and coordinating with carpaski to find an agreeable and reasonable schedule for implementation. This is how it is intended to work for all projects that have specific needs from other projects. Your respective top-level manager should be your ombudsman and work to get needed features on the roadmap of other projects. I believe that this arrangement address all your concerns. Please let me know if that's not the case, and anyone is welcome to chime in if they see an opportunity to improve this process. Best Regards, --=20 Daniel Robbins Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE++z5hffezrJ9WV/IRAqGzAKCCogoJOicixQ1ViHkKIlT+g5kDFwCgtLtB 7YmmBWjYBcRlzkLVNnBhdTc= =f/16 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--