[gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Peter Hyman]

Several core ROX programs are out of date. 

Rox bug # 102228
Rox-lib bug # 79333
Rox-clib bug # 78309

Despite the above bug reports, and copies to the current listed
maintainers, the products are not being updated.

Rox is among the easiest programs to maintain, and many ebuilds simply
need to be renamed in order to work.

In addition, I and others have contributed ebuilds for consideration,
and they continue to languish or are assigned to the maintainer-wanted
alias. I have offered to produce ebuilds for review and submission. I
was told I needed to become a developer. While I would be happy to take
on the responsibility, I don't see why it would be necessary. The
ebuilds are already there for you. Just search ROX in bugzilla. I don't
need my name on it. However, I do feel strongly that if you are going to
offer a package suite in portage, you have an obligation to keep it
current -- ESPECIALLY when the user community is doing the work already.
No one is asking for any special work to be done -- just that bugs are
responded to and handled.

I do not know what happened to the listed rox maintainers, svyatogor and
lanius or why they are not updating rox.

I was wondering what it will take to have the portage tree updated. With
the two libraries noted above, they are blockers to some of the rox
applications and really need to be resolved.

At least have the rox bugs reviewed and cleared out. Most of the ebuilds
have already been submitted and are being used. They deserve to be
placed in portage.
-- 
Peter

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Maurice van der Pot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2044 bytes --]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:58:30AM -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> In addition, I and others have contributed ebuilds for consideration,
> and they continue to languish or are assigned to the maintainer-wanted
> alias. I have offered to produce ebuilds for review and submission. I
> was told I needed to become a developer. While I would be happy to take
> on the responsibility, I don't see why it would be necessary. The
> ebuilds are already there for you. Just search ROX in bugzilla. I don't
> need my name on it. However, I do feel strongly that if you are going to
> offer a package suite in portage, you have an obligation to keep it
> current -- ESPECIALLY when the user community is doing the work already.
> No one is asking for any special work to be done -- just that bugs are
> responded to and handled.

If bugs are not handled in a timely manner, it is because we're
shorthanded. This is also the reason new ebuilds are often assigned to
maintainer-wanted. We'd rather not add packages to portage if there is
no developer to pick up maintenance for them. Remember that we are all
investing our spare time to work on Gentoo, we're not getting paid.
We'd rather focus on removing bugs from packages already in portage than
on adding new packages.

Also for some packages it is hard to find a maintainer because it is
best if the maintainer is also an active user of the package. If a
relatively small group of people uses a package, it's much harder to
find a suitable maintainer.

If you see an area that could use an extra developer working on it and
you think you could be that developer, by all means apply for the
position.

Here are some links of interest:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/staffing-needs/index.xml
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=1&chap=2

Regards,
Maurice.

-- 
Maurice van der Pot

Gentoo Linux Developer   griffon26@gentoo.org     http://www.gentoo.org
Creator of BiteMe!       griffon26@kfk4ever.com   http://www.kfk4ever.com


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Peter Hyman]

On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:50 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:

> If bugs are not handled in a timely manner, it is because we're
> shorthanded. This is also the reason new ebuilds are often assigned to
> maintainer-wanted. We'd rather not add packages to portage if there is
> no developer to pick up maintenance for them. Remember that we are all
> investing our spare time to work on Gentoo, we're not getting paid.
> We'd rather focus on removing bugs from packages already in portage than
> on adding new packages.
> 
> Also for some packages it is hard to find a maintainer because it is
> best if the maintainer is also an active user of the package. If a
> relatively small group of people uses a package, it's much harder to
> find a suitable maintainer.
> 
> If you see an area that could use an extra developer working on it and
> you think you could be that developer, by all means apply for the
> position.
> 
> Here are some links of interest:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/staffing-needs/index.xml
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=1&chap=2
> 
> Regards,
> Maurice.
> 

I am well aware of all this:

2.b. Helping out

Firstly; to be asked to become a developer you should either apply to an
opening, or just help out whether in the form of user support or filing
bug reports - we notice frequent contributors making contributions to
Gentoo and we attempt to reward them by giving them the chance to become
a Gentoo developer. Gentoo has many paths, and the Gentoo Developer
Relations Recruitment Team is always looking out not just for developers
- documentation writers and infrastructure maintainers are just as
important too for our distribution to run smoothly.

You should look out for openings for developers in the GWN, as well as
the /topic of #gentoo-bugs on irc.freenode.net - if you feel you could
fill in one of those positions, try to find a mentor who is willing to
sponsor you, or contact the Gentoo Recruiters who may be able to find a
mentor for you. Please do not file "New Developer" bugs on yourself
since this task is designated for the mentor and any such bugs will be
closed.
---------------------

Certainly, I am others have fulfilled this. I have emailed the two
maintainers offering to assist. No response.

For some reason, rox does not show up as a staffing need. That should be
corrected.

I'm not going to bloat this thread. I am here to help, and I know at
least one other fellow who probably would be willing to help too. It's
easy, quick, and will make what users there are for rox happy.

As I noted, the intent here was not to add any additional work for
developers. On the contrary, the work is done already. We're already
"helping out" we're filing bug reports, we're creating ebuilds that
work. All that needs to be done is get them into portage.

If you are unable to find a suitable developer to maintain rox, then
please let me know and I will see about assembling a herd for it.
-- 
Peter

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Maurice van der Pot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 934 bytes --]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 12:42:11PM -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> Certainly, I am others have fulfilled this. I have emailed the two
> maintainers offering to assist. No response.

I can't speak for them. If they're non-responsive and you want to become
a developer, contact the recruiters.

> For some reason, rox does not show up as a staffing need. That should be
> corrected.

True, that page probably only lists the most critical areas.

> If you are unable to find a suitable developer to maintain rox, then
> please let me know and I will see about assembling a herd for it.

When I was composing my previous message I had something like "I don't
know rox, but" in there. I didn't mean to suggest rox was such a package.

Maurice.

-- 
Maurice van der Pot

Gentoo Linux Developer   griffon26@gentoo.org     http://www.gentoo.org
Creator of BiteMe!       griffon26@kfk4ever.com   http://www.kfk4ever.com


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2510 bytes --]

Peter Hyman wrote:

>Firstly; to be asked to become a developer you should either apply to an
>opening, or just help out whether in the form of user support or filing
>bug reports - we notice frequent contributors making contributions to
>Gentoo and we attempt to reward them by giving them the chance to become
>a Gentoo developer. Gentoo has many paths, and the Gentoo Developer
>Relations Recruitment Team is always looking out not just for developers
>- documentation writers and infrastructure maintainers are just as
>important too for our distribution to run smoothly.
>
>You should look out for openings for developers in the GWN, as well as
>the /topic of #gentoo-bugs on irc.freenode.net - if you feel you could
>fill in one of those positions, try to find a mentor who is willing to
>sponsor you, or contact the Gentoo Recruiters who may be able to find a
>mentor for you. Please do not file "New Developer" bugs on yourself
>since this task is designated for the mentor and any such bugs will be
>closed.
>---------------------
>
>Certainly, I am others have fulfilled this. I have emailed the two
>maintainers offering to assist. No response.
>
>For some reason, rox does not show up as a staffing need. That should be
>corrected.
>
>I'm not going to bloat this thread. I am here to help, and I know at
>least one other fellow who probably would be willing to help too. It's
>easy, quick, and will make what users there are for rox happy.
>
>As I noted, the intent here was not to add any additional work for
>developers. On the contrary, the work is done already. We're already
>"helping out" we're filing bug reports, we're creating ebuilds that
>work. All that needs to be done is get them into portage.
>
>If you are unable to find a suitable developer to maintain rox, then
>please let me know and I will see about assembling a herd for it.
>  
>

Indeed, your name is everywhere when it comes down to rox thing. Because
your dedication on rox subject, I am willing to help you become a dev,
but I need to be sure you are not going to dissapear in the very next
moment.
Gentoo history is full of such individuals who only want to be sure that
they could become devs but are not willing to put any effort behind it.

Do you want be a dev? Are you sure you could take the heat? What do you
expect from Gentoo and what do you have to offer in exchange?

Please email me the answers to these questions on my private address. I
need to know you a bit before I decide if I could mentor you or not.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 348 bytes --]

Alin Nastac wrote:	[Sun Sep 11 2005, 05:02:27PM EDT]
> Gentoo history is full of such individuals who only want to be sure
> that they could become devs but are not willing to put any effort
> behind it.

Gentoo's history is full of hard-working devs.
The slackers are simply forgotten.  ;-)

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

Aron Griffis wrote:

>Alin Nastac wrote:	[Sun Sep 11 2005, 05:02:27PM EDT]
>  
>
>>Gentoo history is full of such individuals who only want to be sure
>>that they could become devs but are not willing to put any effort
>>behind it.
>>    
>>
>
>Gentoo's history is full of hard-working devs.
>The slackers are simply forgotten.  ;-)
>
>  
>
true. my appologies :-[

what I was trying to say is that I'm not willing to spend my time on
someone who will vanish shorty afterward.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Peter Hyman]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 00:02 +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:

snip...
> Indeed, your name is everywhere when it comes down to rox thing. Because
> your dedication on rox subject, I am willing to help you become a dev,
> but I need to be sure you are not going to dissapear in the very next
> moment.
> Gentoo history is full of such individuals who only want to be sure that
> they could become devs but are not willing to put any effort behind it.
> 
> Do you want be a dev? Are you sure you could take the heat? What do you
> expect from Gentoo and what do you have to offer in exchange?
> 
> Please email me the answers to these questions on my private address. I
> need to know you a bit before I decide if I could mentor you or not.

Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
already been rejected Ciaran. It's important to realize that the
submissions were intended to AID the developers, not to necessarily be
PERFECT in every way.

I submitted the ebuilds in good faith in the hope they would help myself
and others get the portage tree wrt ROX up to date and correct
breakages. In that my "spacing" was not liked, or my "descriptions" were
too long is irrelevant.

The ebuilds are fine, and they work. You are welcome to them. As for
future development, due to possible problems with the rox.eclass, I am
taking rox off-line from gentoo and will maintain it separate from
gentoo.

As for any open bugs, I leave it to maintainer-wanted. Good luck.
-- 
Peter

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 829 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:14:27 -0400 Peter Hyman <pete4abw@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
| already been rejected Ciaran.

As you know fine well, nothing was rejected. I gave you QA feedback on
a few maintainer-wanted bugs so that you can improve your ebuilds to be
in a tree-ready state.

If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to an
open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
straight off (at least, we don't until we give you commit access). We
*do* expect you to be prepared to respond to constructive criticism and
improve your code.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Alec Warner]

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

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:14:27 -0400 Peter Hyman <pete4abw@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> | Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
> | already been rejected Ciaran.
> 
> As you know fine well, nothing was rejected. I gave you QA feedback on
> a few maintainer-wanted bugs so that you can improve your ebuilds to be
> in a tree-ready state.
> 
> If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to an
> open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
> straight off (at least, we don't until we give you commit access). We
> *do* expect you to be prepared to respond to constructive criticism and
> improve your code.
> 
No-one produces perfect code all the time, commit access or not ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=Oi05
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1033 bytes --]

On Monday 12 September 2005 02:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to an
> open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
> straight off (at least, we don't until we give you commit access). We
> *do* expect you to be prepared to respond to constructive criticism and
> improve your code.

Personally I think you're just going a bit wild by closing the bug reports as 
wont fix and expecting users to fix them. That's part of developers job, if 
someone takes into account adding an ebuild to the official tree, isn't it?! 
While I can understand your motivation, I'd like to know if your doing is 
backed up by at least an informal decision (didn't follow the threads which 
resulted in the maintainer* aliases, etc.), because we have enough whining 
guys, who don't understand that our ressources are limited. Caring for the 
quality of stuff, that is not part of the official tree is only bad PR, but 
not a win for us, imho.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2007 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:55 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2005 02:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to an
> > open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
> > straight off (at least, we don't until we give you commit access). We
> > *do* expect you to be prepared to respond to constructive criticism and
> > improve your code.
> 
> Personally I think you're just going a bit wild by closing the bug reports as 
> wont fix and expecting users to fix them. That's part of developers job, if 
> someone takes into account adding an ebuild to the official tree, isn't it?! 
> While I can understand your motivation, I'd like to know if your doing is 
> backed up by at least an informal decision (didn't follow the threads which 
> resulted in the maintainer* aliases, etc.), because we have enough whining 
> guys, who don't understand that our ressources are limited. Caring for the 
> quality of stuff, that is not part of the official tree is only bad PR, but 
> not a win for us, imho.

We generally handle this in games not by marking it WONTFIX (except
rarely) but instead by simply leaving it open, and commenting to the
users what they need to fix before it would be included.  We aren't 100%
stringent on what we require users to fix, and many times we'll fix it
ourselves if it isn't that much and simply note it in the bug for the
user to see.  This tends to lead to users providing better ebuilds in
the future, and also lessens user frustration.  Many users seem to think
that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable.  I tend to agree with them, for the
most part.  Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't
be included as-is.  WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are
not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 923 bytes --]


12.9.2005, 16:03:17, Chris Gianelloni wrote:


> Many users seem to think that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree
> with them, for the most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that
> they won't be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we
> are not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case.

http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm/docs/mw-faq/wontfix.txt

Telling them that the ebuild "won't be included as-is" pretty much equals
WONTFIX, except for the major disadvantage that is can't be tracked via
Bugzilla at all... not so much fun really, considering there are over 600 new
ebuild bugs there.

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu: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: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Maurice van der Pot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Many users seem to think
> that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable.  I tend to agree with them, for the
> most part.  Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't
> be included as-is.  WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are
> not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case.

But if a developer tells them what is wrong and to reopen the bug when
they've fixed it, it shouldn't be a problem. And that's what I've seen
in this case.

-- 
Maurice van der Pot

Gentoo Linux Developer   griffon26@gentoo.org     http://www.gentoo.org
Creator of BiteMe!       griffon26@kfk4ever.com   http://www.kfk4ever.com


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Peter Hyman]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Many users seem to think
> > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable.  I tend to agree with them, for the
> > most part.  Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't
> > be included as-is.  WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are
> > not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case.
> 
> But if a developer tells them what is wrong and to reopen the bug when
> they've fixed it, it shouldn't be a problem. And that's what I've seen
> in this case.
> 

I think you all misunderstand MY position on this. I provided ebuilds in
the hope it would save the maintainers time and effort. If the work I
did is 90% to spec, then there really is no reason for the maintainer
NOT to take it, tweak it, and maybe send a note or add a comment to the
bug as to what was fixed. It would ensure two things: 1) that the user
will (hopefully) not make the same mistake again, and 2) get the ebuild
upstream quicker.

Sending it back to the contributor only will waste more time.

The ROX situation is different though since it appears the two
maintainers have apparently gone AWOL. This, of course, I would not know
as a user/contributor. My frustration came out of inaction by the absent
maintainers.

However, the comments I got back along with the WONTFIX was AS IF I was
a maintainer and should have known better. That is incorrect. Had I
known there was no maintainer, then the delay on the ebuilds' inclusion
into portage would have been better understood.

But be cognizant of WHO is submitting ebuilds and provide guidance and
support according to that. A user cannot be expected to know all there
is to know about ebuilds. Some users just don't care. BUT they care
enough to try and keep packages up to date. There's the difference.
-- 
Peter

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Martin Schlemmer]

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

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > Many users seem to think
> > > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable.  I tend to agree with them, for the
> > > most part.  Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't
> > > be included as-is.  WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are
> > > not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case.
> > 
> > But if a developer tells them what is wrong and to reopen the bug when
> > they've fixed it, it shouldn't be a problem. And that's what I've seen
> > in this case.
> > 
> 
> I think you all misunderstand MY position on this. I provided ebuilds in
> the hope it would save the maintainers time and effort. If the work I
> did is 90% to spec, then there really is no reason for the maintainer
> NOT to take it, tweak it, and maybe send a note or add a comment to the
> bug as to what was fixed. It would ensure two things: 1) that the user
> will (hopefully) not make the same mistake again, and 2) get the ebuild
> upstream quicker.
> 
> Sending it back to the contributor only will waste more time.
> 

You will get exactly the same effect if you were to send a patch to LKML
to fix or improve some or other part of the kernel, and either the
coding style, or the way it is fixed is not to Linus or the specific
subsystem maintainer's liking.

The general idea is that if somebody want to get involved, they should
be prepared to to take the time to learn how to do fairly decent
patches/whatever.  This makes review easier, and also minimises the
workload on whatever maintainer.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Peter Hyman]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:12 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > Many users seem to think
> > > > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable.  I tend to agree with them, for the
> > > > most part.  Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't
> > > > be included as-is.  WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are
> > > > not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case.
> > > 
> > > But if a developer tells them what is wrong and to reopen the bug when
> > > they've fixed it, it shouldn't be a problem. And that's what I've seen
> > > in this case.
> > > 
> > 
> > I think you all misunderstand MY position on this. I provided ebuilds in
> > the hope it would save the maintainers time and effort. If the work I
> > did is 90% to spec, then there really is no reason for the maintainer
> > NOT to take it, tweak it, and maybe send a note or add a comment to the
> > bug as to what was fixed. It would ensure two things: 1) that the user
> > will (hopefully) not make the same mistake again, and 2) get the ebuild
> > upstream quicker.
> > 
> > Sending it back to the contributor only will waste more time.
> > 
> 
> You will get exactly the same effect if you were to send a patch to LKML
> to fix or improve some or other part of the kernel, and either the
> coding style, or the way it is fixed is not to Linus or the specific
> subsystem maintainer's liking.

Listen, if all you want is perfection, you will find users won't want to
contribute anymore. All you're accomplishing is wasting time. User
submits enhancement as per:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ebuild-submit.xml . Nothing in that
document talks about having to be perfect. It even allows for users to
say "hey, there is a new version out." But know. The ebuild attack dogs
slap a WONTFIX/RESOLVED tag on an app. So, instead of an enhancement in
the pipeline, we have several dead bugs. Not contructive IMHO.

> 
> The general idea is that if somebody want to get involved, they should
> be prepared to to take the time to learn how to do fairly decent
> patches/whatever.  This makes review easier, and also minimises the
> workload on whatever maintainer.
> 
I think you need to rethink that. Notifying a maintainer that there is
an update or new add on to an existing project is not really getting
involved. It's HELPING. I realize that maintainers cannot stay on top of
all 120,000 packages. That's where the everyday users come in. They,
selfishly, monitor THEIR pet applications. When something slips, they
report it via bugzilla. If the everyday users stop contributing these
notifications, your distro is SOL.

My mistake was trying to be helpful and submitting ebuilds. Instead of
being construed as helping, some of you perceived I was angling for a
dev position. Why DO you have over 600 maintainer-wanted ebuilds? You
should look into that. Could it be that 600 people who submitted an idea
were intimidated or put off?

What I WOULD like to know is:

1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius?
2) Who is maintaining ROX and what's going to be done about it.

Really, I don't want this thread to become a philosophical discussion on
ebuild submission policy. You know my frustration. As a user, I just
want to see the ROX package group updated as I noted on my first message
and in the associated bug reports. How this devolved into this name
calling argument over what is just criticism and ebuild style is
completely OT and avoids the issue of the two questions above.

So, please just answer the above two questions, and we can end this
thread. If philosophy is desired, then start a new one. I just want to
know about ROX now.
-- 
Peter

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 363 bytes --]

Peter Hyman wrote:
> 1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius?

I don't know if they are active or not, but you can always try to
*unofficially* check when did they last committed something to CVS -
[1], [2].

[1] http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/svyatogor
[2] http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/lanius

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Stephen P. Becker]

> I think you need to rethink that. Notifying a maintainer that there is
> an update or new add on to an existing project is not really getting
> involved. It's HELPING. I realize that maintainers cannot stay on top of
> all 120,000 packages. That's where the everyday users come in. They,
> selfishly, monitor THEIR pet applications. When something slips, they
> report it via bugzilla. If the everyday users stop contributing these
> notifications, your distro is SOL.
> 
> My mistake was trying to be helpful and submitting ebuilds. Instead of
> being construed as helping, some of you perceived I was angling for a
> dev position. Why DO you have over 600 maintainer-wanted ebuilds? You
> should look into that. Could it be that 600 people who submitted an idea
> were intimidated or put off?
> 
> What I WOULD like to know is:
> 
> 1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius?
> 2) Who is maintaining ROX and what's going to be done about it.
> 
> Really, I don't want this thread to become a philosophical discussion on
> ebuild submission policy. You know my frustration. As a user, I just
> want to see the ROX package group updated as I noted on my first message
> and in the associated bug reports. How this devolved into this name
> calling argument over what is just criticism and ebuild style is
> completely OT and avoids the issue of the two questions above.
> 
> So, please just answer the above two questions, and we can end this
> thread. If philosophy is desired, then start a new one. I just want to
> know about ROX now.

Of course, in the time you have spent writing bitch after bitch in this 
thread, I'm sure you would have had plenty of time to apply Ciaran's 
suggestions such that your ebuilds could be accepted.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1642 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:00 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> What I WOULD like to know is:
> 
> 1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius?

<CIA-1> svyatogor * gentoo/xml/htdocs/doc/ru/handbook/ (5 files): 
<CIA-1> handbook indices for x86, AMD64, and SPARC archs. Bug #101063.
Commit is done

This is from today.  At least svyatogor is active.

> 2) Who is maintaining ROX and what's going to be done about it.

Since svyatogor is active, I would say that he is maintaining it.  My
"usual" answer to the "when will this be added to the tree" question is
"when it is done".

Your ebuilds were not ready for inclusion, which means that the
maintainer doesn't just need time to drop your ebuilds into an overlay,
emerge them, and commit them, but instead has to take time to resolve
any issues with them.  Sometimes this is as simple as changing a word or
adding some quotes.  Sometimes this can be rather extensive.  Having a
100% correct ebuild, as we have been *trying* to tell you, reduces the
work on the maintainer to almost nil.  A partially correct ebuild can
possibly even increase the amount of work needed, if the ebuild is in
especially bad shape.  I understand your frustration, just understand
that a partially-correct ebuild could possibly not be any more helpful
than stating "a new version of $foo is out" when it comes to developer
time.  Ciaran is only trying to help you write a better ebuild, so that
next time you make one, it will be correct and can go into the tree
without editing.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1711 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:55:55 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 02:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to
| > an open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
| > straight off (at least, we don't until we give you commit access).
| > We *do* expect you to be prepared to respond to constructive
| > criticism and improve your code.
| 
| Personally I think you're just going a bit wild by closing the bug
| reports as wont fix and expecting users to fix them. That's part of
| developers job, if someone takes into account adding an ebuild to the
| official tree, isn't it?!

Stuff assigned to maintainer-wanted has no developer. From what we've
seen in the past, most of those ebuilds are pretty unlikely to ever get
a developer either. The easiest way to improve those ebuilds' chances
of getting into the tree is by getting them up to a good enough
standard that whoever picks them up is very unlikely to have to do
major extra work on them.

| While I can understand your motivation, I'd
| like to know if your doing is backed up by at least an informal
| decision (didn't follow the threads which resulted in the maintainer*
| aliases, etc.), because we have enough whining guys, who don't
| understand that our ressources are limited. Caring for the quality of
| stuff, that is not part of the official tree is only bad PR, but not
| a win for us, imho.

It was discussed on this list.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --]

On Monday 12 September 2005 19:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The easiest way to improve those ebuilds' chances
> of getting into the tree is by getting them up to a good enough
> standard that whoever picks them up is very unlikely to have to do
> major extra work on them.

To have even more unmaintained packages in the tree. The tree it is that needs 
QA. If "maintainer-wanted" bugs stay open forever - who cares.

> It was discussed on this list.

Thanks for the pointer. :p So from the user point of view it's better to file 
a request without attaching an ebuild, because it wouldn't directly resolved 
WONTFIX?! (Before you answer that: From the user point of view, not your's.) 
I mean I'm often giving a pointer on an formal issue or a very wrong attempt, 
but being that strict is not neecessary, discouraging and probably some even 
take the chance to molest about Gentoo, imho.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1454 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:32:32 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 19:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The easiest way to improve those ebuilds' chances
| > of getting into the tree is by getting them up to a good enough
| > standard that whoever picks them up is very unlikely to have to do
| > major extra work on them.
| 
| To have even more unmaintained packages in the tree. The tree it is
| that needs QA. If "maintainer-wanted" bugs stay open forever - who
| cares.

The people who work with maintainer-wanted care.

| > It was discussed on this list.
| 
| Thanks for the pointer. :p So from the user point of view it's better
| to file a request without attaching an ebuild, because it wouldn't
| directly resolved WONTFIX?! (Before you answer that: From the user
| point of view, not your's.) I mean I'm often giving a pointer on an
| formal issue or a very wrong attempt, but being that strict is not
| neecessary, discouraging and probably some even take the chance to
| molest about Gentoo, imho.

Not really. It's pretty likely that anyone who looks seriously at
maintainer-wanted will include "and KEYWORDS includes EBUILD" in their
search. They'll probably include "and KEYWORDS includes REVIEWED" too...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1928 bytes --]


12.9.2005, 19:32:32, Carsten Lohrke wrote:

> To have even more unmaintained packages in the tree. The tree it is that
> needs QA. If "maintainer-wanted" bugs stay open forever - who cares.

[left for later reference]


> Thanks for the pointer. :p So from the user point of view it's better to file
> a request without attaching an ebuild, because it wouldn't directly resolved 
> WONTFIX?! (Before you answer that: From the user point of view, not your's.) 
> I mean I'm often giving a pointer on an formal issue or a very wrong attempt,
> but being that strict is not neecessary, discouraging and probably some even 
> take the chance to molest about Gentoo, imho.

Not at all. There are *lots* of people that actually fix their ebuilds very
quickly and appreciate the comments. And - as everywhere - there's also a bunch
of people that start bitching instead of taking 5 minutes to fix the thing.

Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted
ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted queue
forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise, I'm
missing why are you worried about people not submitting their ebuilds any more.

At the very least, reviewing user-submitted ebuilds and marking things
WONTFIX/CANTFIX/REVIEWED makes it possible to filter out the outdated and
dead-upstream crap, as well as things about which those people who filed the
bugs don't care any more. And, if someone picks those ebuilds up and decides to
maintain them, he can focus more on testing the actual app then fixing a broken
ebuild (or even committing a broken ebuild into the tree).


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu: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: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1464 bytes --]

On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted
> ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted queue
> forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise, I'm
> missing why are you worried about people not submitting their ebuilds any
> more.

Two points:

1. The biggest share of maintenance isn't getting an ebuild right, but the 
ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches, interact with 
upstream developers, test, stabilize,... To me it absolutely doesn't matter, 
if an ebuild is broken or not before taking into account to maintain it.

2. People are interested in applications, but may not have the skills or 
interest to get an ebuild 100% perfect. WONTFIX will look like PISSOFF for 
them. I think we just look a bit petty-minded.


> At the very least, reviewing user-submitted ebuilds and marking things
> WONTFIX/CANTFIX/REVIEWED makes it possible to filter out the outdated and
> dead-upstream crap, as well as things about which those people who filed
> the bugs don't care any more. And, if someone picks those ebuilds up and
> decides to maintain them, he can focus more on testing the actual app then
> fixing a broken ebuild (or even committing a broken ebuild into the tree).

As I said: Ebuilds in Portage should be reviewed before you think about those 
in bugzilla.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1682 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:53:26 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
| 1. The biggest share of maintenance isn't getting an ebuild right,
| but the ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches,
| interact with upstream developers, test, stabilize,... To me it
| absolutely doesn't matter, if an ebuild is broken or not before
| taking into account to maintain it.

A lot of that depends upon the package in question. Some of the things
I maintain have pretty tricky ebuilds and some fairly hairy eclass
voodoo, but the actual bumps are almost always extremely quick and
simple.

| 2. People are interested in applications, but may not have the skills
| or interest to get an ebuild 100% perfect. WONTFIX will look like
| PISSOFF for them. I think we just look a bit petty-minded.

We don't WONTFIX it without an explanation. I always give something
along the lines of "Please attach an updated ebuild with the following
things fixed and reopen:".

*shrug* If someone wants to create a new bugzilla resolution, I'll
start using it, but for now, WONTFIX is what we agreed was the most
suitable resolution.

And as for taking it as a PISSOFF... We've had exactly one person do
that so far. All the rest of the feedback we receive -- which is a heck
of a lot -- is of the "thanks for the pointers, please could someone
check this updated ebuild?" and occasionally "could you clarify $blah
for me please?" variety.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Nathan L. Adams]

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

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And as for taking it as a PISSOFF... We've had exactly one person do
> that so far. All the rest of the feedback we receive -- which is a heck
> of a lot -- is of the "thanks for the pointers, please could someone
> check this updated ebuild?" and occasionally "could you clarify $blah
> for me please?" variety.

My first inclination is to take "WONTFIX" as "PISSOFF", and I even read
the previous thread in question. :)

I humbly suggest adding a "REVIEWED" and/or "NEEDSWORK" keyword and
leaving the bug in the OPEN or ASSIGNED state.

But adding the comments (with pointers to more in-depth explanations) is
a great idea, especially if you present them in a cordial way:

    Thanks for helping Gentoo! The ebuild you submitted isn't quite
    ready, so here is what one needs to do to get it in the tree:

    link1
    link2

    Thanks again!

Which is probably what you're doing already. :)

As for missing/AWOL developers, and for developer/user problem
resolution, I *think* devrel handles that:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/

Nathan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDJhs02QTTR4CNEQARApZsAJ9+KRCAsawb5/fVD8FFpTO0d2TitACgmqH2
OI1jP3uv+/Ll7qHOawzqowo=
=VPCh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Dan Meltzer]

The problem is, trying to fix ebuilds in tree is a lot more
complicated.. You have to fight with multiple herds, and multiple
developers, and explain to them why it should occur, in order to get
anything to happen.. In addition, even a global gigantic one liner to
add quotes to $D and $S would cause huge rsync loads... which makes
the mirror admins hate you... Combine this with the first issue, and
just improving the incoming ebuilds and hoping that the devs watching
this list pay attention, and make some of these changes in newly added
ebuilds, will improve the quality of the tree slowly.

If a user submits an ebuild, they should be prepared to make fixes to
bring it up to a standard.  Many of the ebuilds do not even follow
ebuild-submit.xml, and the maintainer fixing them only causes more
problems for other maintainers further down, assuming the user submits
multiple ebuilds.  Once they learn the rules, later ebuilds will
hopefully be up to the same standards.

On 9/12/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted
> > ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted
> queue
> > forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise,
> I'm
> > missing why are you worried about people not submitting their ebuilds any
> > more.
> 
> Two points:
> 
> 1. The biggest share of maintenance isn't getting an ebuild right, but the 
> ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches, interact with 
> upstream developers, test, stabilize,... To me it absolutely doesn't matter,
> 
> if an ebuild is broken or not before taking into account to maintain it.
> 
> 2. People are interested in applications, but may not have the skills or 
> interest to get an ebuild 100% perfect. WONTFIX will look like PISSOFF for 
> them. I think we just look a bit petty-minded.
> 
> 
> > At the very least, reviewing user-submitted ebuilds and marking things
> > WONTFIX/CANTFIX/REVIEWED makes it possible to filter out the outdated and
> > dead-upstream crap, as well as things about which those people who filed
> > the bugs don't care any more. And, if someone picks those ebuilds up and
> > decides to maintain them, he can focus more on testing the actual app
> then
> > fixing a broken ebuild (or even committing a broken ebuild into the
> tree).
> 
> As I said: Ebuilds in Portage should be reviewed before you think about
> those 
> in bugzilla.
> 
> 
> Carsten
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Stephen P. Becker]

> Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
> already been rejected Ciaran. It's important to realize that the
> submissions were intended to AID the developers, not to necessarily be
> PERFECT in every way.

Of course they have been criticized by Ciaran.  In case you didn't know, 
he does this for *every* maintainer-wanted ebuild.  They are only 
rejected as long as they have problems.  If you fix them, they will be 
accepted if some dev takes responsibility for them, or is recruited to 
maintain them.  It's really that simple  Sounds like a case where you 
can't stand to have anyone review your work.

> I submitted the ebuilds in good faith in the hope they would help myself
> and others get the portage tree wrt ROX up to date and correct
> breakages. In that my "spacing" was not liked, or my "descriptions" were
> too long is irrelevant.

No, it isn't irrelevant.  We strive to make the portage tree to be of 
high quality.  Why settle for less?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Peter Hyman]

On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 20:27 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
> > already been rejected Ciaran. It's important to realize that the
> > submissions were intended to AID the developers, not to necessarily be
> > PERFECT in every way.
> 
> Of course they have been criticized by Ciaran.  In case you didn't know, 
> he does this for *every* maintainer-wanted ebuild.  They are only 
> rejected as long as they have problems.  If you fix them, they will be 
> accepted if some dev takes responsibility for them, or is recruited to 
> maintain them.  It's really that simple  Sounds like a case where you 
> can't stand to have anyone review your work.
> 
> > I submitted the ebuilds in good faith in the hope they would help myself
> > and others get the portage tree wrt ROX up to date and correct
> > breakages. In that my "spacing" was not liked, or my "descriptions" were
> > too long is irrelevant.
> 
> No, it isn't irrelevant.  We strive to make the portage tree to be of 
> high quality.  Why settle for less?
> 
> -Steve

Oh, flame on! When I submitted many of the ebuilds, I had no idea the
rox maintainers were AWOL. I just assumed that they would take heed of
the version bumps, small changes made to existing ebuilds, and update
portage. It was not my intent to replace the maintainers or to re-invent
their efforts. I thought that having a new up-to-date ebuild would save
time for the maintainers.

I did not know that there were none anymore. As I wrote privately to
Ciaran, if I WAS auditioning to become a dev, then sure, I need the
comments. However, I was using:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ebuild-submit.xml as my guide -- the goal
being to alert the devs that new stuff was out and that certain
breakages needed fixing.

If the goal was to keep portage quality high, take heed of user comments
when it comes to updating packages. We all share that goal.


--
Peter

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list