From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EChAT-0006DX-TO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:23:36 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86HJ9MS028371; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:19:09 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86HGbIR027190 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:16:38 GMT Received: from 82-41-57-20.cable.ubr08.edin.blueyonder.co.uk ([82.41.57.20] helo=snowdrop.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ECh70-0006aG-5J for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:19:58 +0000 Received: from localhost.home ([127.0.0.1] helo=snowdrop.home) by snowdrop.home with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ECh8V-0003zA-H9 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:21:31 +0100 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:21:29 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [Summary] tentative x86 arch team glep Message-ID: <20050906182129.5725cf67@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <431DCBE9.4090907@wildgooses.com> References: <200509061903.39000.chriswhite@gentoo.org> <431DCBE9.4090907@wildgooses.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.13 (GTK+ 2.6.8; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Signature_Tue__6_Sep_2005_18_21_29_+0100_MrAiO1bbf6mUlzI="; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 18177722-38f3-48cf-84f5-02f11617de46 X-Archives-Hash: cc7aed289f52f9af8fa13bbcce5eb9fc --Signature_Tue__6_Sep_2005_18_21_29_+0100_MrAiO1bbf6mUlzI= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:03:37 +0100 Ed W wrote: | As an "outsider" reading that summary the message *I* read is that | there is some strain over fitting the development model into | "stable", "~", and "package.mask". I think I see people basically | saying that they have differing views over what qualifies for each | level? The system basically works. The problems are: * It's not always used correctly. * It's not entirely understood by some users. * Some users think it should be easier to unmask a group of related packages. The third one's invalid, they just need to learn how to use sed... | Also, as someone who has submitted a few patches and some ebuilds and=20 | then seen nothing happen to them and my offers to act as maintainer | have gone unresponded I also wonder if there is some way to make | better use of casual contributors like me? (I'm not bitter, it's just | that I feel I could contribute more, but don't know how to?) The problem is... Getting someone ready to be able to commit to the main tree is expensive in terms of existing developer time. The solution isn't lowering the standards for commit access, because that just leads to even more wasted developer time. There's the two tier system that gets proposed every now and again, but that would a) require svn rather than cvs and b) require that certain people who currently have main tree access be moved to branch access only. A bigger tree is all well and good, but the tree we have right now is only half maintained... --=20 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Signature_Tue__6_Sep_2005_18_21_29_+0100_MrAiO1bbf6mUlzI= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDHdAb96zL6DUtXhERAh4SAJ0Xv+0zOkp2uvSxWTOgivx7GF6RxQCfSDTi k7EdEOdMrCOImQp/H5Gfm+8= =wRS0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature_Tue__6_Sep_2005_18_21_29_+0100_MrAiO1bbf6mUlzI=-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list