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 4.54) id 1FZWcj-00028r-Ep for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:19:22 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k3SHI7Yg015396; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:18:07 GMT Received: from watcher.kimaker.com (c-67-169-29-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.29.182]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3SHEruW027573 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:14:54 GMT Received: by watcher.kimaker.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 23BD975858D; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:14:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:14:53 -0700 From: Ryan Phillips To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union Message-ID: <20060428171453.GB62035@watcher.kimaker.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ryan Phillips , gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org 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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: b971d218-1554-4a90-8298-769ac5198f1e X-Archives-Hash: 24d6b8e562492584d51ef5a553660d5a --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a follow up to Mark's (halcy0n's) thread regarding QA Policies and seemant's letter on herds, teams, and projects. I believe the way Gentoo is doing things is broken. There I have said it. = The entire project has reached a level of being too political and trying to sol= ve certain problems in the wrong way. Some of these problems are intermixed. Please consider them starting points for discussion. __Problem: Developer Growth__ I find that developer growth as being a problem. Adding a developer to gen= too should be as easy as 1. has the user contributed numerous (~5+) patches that helps the project move forward. If yes, then commit access should be given. Adding a developer is usually quite a chore. There are numerous reasons why this is a problem: having a live tree, taking a test, and not defining with= in policy when a person could possibly get commit access.=20 All these reasons leave the project stagnant and lacking developers. Why do people have to take a test? Is it to make sure they won't break the tree? If it is, then the solution of a test is wrong. We do want to make = sure our developers understand gentoo, but I argue that the bugtracker is all we need. As long as a person is adding value to gentoo and they have "proven" themselves, then they *should* have commit access.=20 Perhaps its because of a live tree... __Problem: Live Tree__ Having a live tree requires people to be perfect. People are not perfect a= nd requiring it is ridiculous. I love having commits in my local tree within = the hour, but having a stable and unstable branch makes a lot of sense. =20 CVS doesn't do branching nor tags very well...=20 __Problem: CVS__ CVS is one of the worst application ever created. The portage tree needs to move to subversion. A lot of the problems within the project would be solv= ed by using a better SCM system. The previous problems regarding the Live Tree and Developer Growth would be solved, IMHO, by just switching. Branches Wo= rk. Tags Work. Reverts work. Moves work. I don't see any reason not to use i= t. It just plain works. Projects (gentoo/bsd, embedded, hardened) could choose to keep their own branches of the portage tree and merge with trunk as needed. Projects could stick to traditional solutions like profiles if they so wished.=20 Some will probably ask who will merge between branches. We can do that eas= ily ourselves. If I think a package is good to go, then svn merge -r1123:1124 = to the branch.=20 Huge projects like Apache, GCC, and KDE already use SVN. __Problem: QA Policies__=20 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/37544 It seems that the QA Policies are a product of a Live Tree, and going parti= ally non-live would solve the problems listed.=20 Everyone here is on the same team. There will be some breakages in the tree and those can be dealt with. Like Seemant [1] said, herds are just groups = of like *packages*. The QA Policy is wrong when it says cross-team assistance= ; we are all on the *same* team. The tree should naturally work. If it doesn't then that is a bug for all of us. Conflict resolution should not be a subproject. It should *not* exist at a= ll. Rules need to be in place to avoid conflict. Having some sort of voting structure for all the developers (this doesn't mean requiring everyone to v= ote) and not just the council or devrel makes a lot of sense for most things. I= f I don't like how someone is acting within the project there should be a vote = and then see if that person is kicked out. No trial, no anything besides a vot= e. And if I lose I have to deal with it. Either stay with the project, or find something else. This solution just works. Gentoo should be a fun environment. The previous paragraph should be taken= as a last resort. __Problem: GLEPs__ I dislike GLEPs. Usually they sit on the website for a long long time not doing anything. My vote (+1) is get rid of gleps and do everything by email and a vote by the developers. AFAIK, the board votes on the GLEPs. Bad Id= ea. It stifles things from getting done, and there is no ownership of who is go= ing to implement the idea. A new idea proposal should be mailed to a mailinglist (-innovation?) with details of timeline to completion, impact, and who is doing the implementat= ion. If it sounds like a good one, then there is a vote and things proceed. I l= ike progress. __Problem: Voting__ Gentoo has over 200 developers. People are generally against the voting id= ea, but I'm not sure why. I think voting should work like this: if 30 develop= ers (or someother specified number) vote yes to an idea then that idea passes. = It doesn't require everyone to vote, be at home, be on the computer, and not b= e on vacation. The Apache Foundation already has a decent page regarding this: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The Apache Foundation has over 1300 developers; they must be doing something right. If someone misses a vote, too bad. You weren't there and progress has been made. I equate this to leaving on vacation from work. My input is missed while away, but decisions have been made in my absence. =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- What is interesting is that Source Mage Linux has already voted on a propos= al similar to mine[2]. I truly think that making some changes in the "gentoo = way" would benefit us and make gentoo a truly better distribution. Ryan Gentoo Developer [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/37599=20 [2] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/2006-April/014069.html --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEUk2M6cLeDQrpxL8RAvvnAJ9E0cVSJsLFyPXhvo32vsi1evJT4wCbB2au R/Zf2NMxnwrC1c20Y9+x8+o= =KAfL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list