* Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v3
2014-01-10 17:26 [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v3 Igor
@ 2014-01-10 17:40 ` Jeroen Roovers
2014-01-10 21:12 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2014-01-10 21:39 ` [gentoo-dev] " Michał Górny
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeroen Roovers @ 2014-01-10 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:26:47 +0400
Igor <lanthruster@gmail.com> wrote:
> In project like that I can't rush to programming it without
> everyone's approval.
You don't need anyone's approval to do anything. Just go for it.
jer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [gentoo-dev] Re: Question, Portage QOS v3
2014-01-10 17:26 [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v3 Igor
2014-01-10 17:40 ` Jeroen Roovers
@ 2014-01-10 21:12 ` Duncan
2014-01-10 21:39 ` [gentoo-dev] " Michał Górny
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2014-01-10 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Igor posted on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:26:47 +0400 as excerpted:
> PS No way PortageQOS will work without uniform agreement. That thing was
> missing from portage design from the start and now with the legacy it's
> either everyone is willing to give it a try or none. I don't want to
> push somebody to something he doesn't see purpose for. There are people
> here who spent lots of time on the project and it might be left as is if
> they don't want any change.
In that case, don't bother, because as the saying goes, attempting to get
100% agreement on /anything/ in gentoo is "like herding cats". It simply
Does. Not. Work.
The closest gentoo gets to 100% agreement is the ones who disagree
agreeing to yield to the council's decision and shut up for the sake of
maintaining the peace, believing time will eventually prove their point.
Or they don't, and they ultimately end up either deciding to go elsewhere
than gentoo on their own, or get booted by devrel, appeal to council goes
against them, and undertakers and infra shut down their dev access
permanently.
In fact, some of those people ended up with exherbo (which AFAIK is a
play on ex=former, and gentoo's larry the cow mascot) or other projects
which you would consider entirely competing. Yet there's a few devs that
contribute to both projects, and paludis is an accepted portage
alternative, with PMS accepted (grudgingly by some devs) and declared by
council to be a defining guideline for in-tree ebuilds. And both those
projects are originally/primarily exherbo authored/contributed.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v3
2014-01-10 17:26 [gentoo-dev] Question, Portage QOS v3 Igor
2014-01-10 17:40 ` Jeroen Roovers
2014-01-10 21:12 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
@ 2014-01-10 21:39 ` Michał Górny
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2014-01-10 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: lanthruster
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2921 bytes --]
Dnia 2014-01-10, o godz. 21:26:47
Igor <lanthruster@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> As there are more questions rose. See you can't just think of everything,
> what you need is an ability to improve fast :-)
A starting note:
You've started *four* threads on the same subject *today* already.
As a result, the whole discussion is shattered all over the place
and if someone really wants to know all the details, he has to lose
*a lot of time* reading all the individual threads and trying to
compare and assemble.
Please don't do that. Just start a single thread, and try to keep
that discussion on subject.
> In project like that I can't rush to programming it without
> everyone's approval. This part of the project should have been
> implemented with the first portage version by it's creator. But as
> I'm not this person I'll need the expertise of the whole community.
I don't know what kind of approval do you expect. I don't think Gentoo
ever was much about 'officially approved', and I doubt we can give you
any meaningful answer without prior testing.
If you think it will be beneficial, start working on it. Once you get
it working and we can see how it works, we can consider making it
official.
However, I'm afraid many of Gentoo users will not be interested in
participating, or only interested in partial participation. What you're
suggesting implies sending a lot of potentially private information.
Many of our users will be concerned by that. I can't imagine it being
any other way than opt-in. Then, many of our users will simply not
care. As someone in the thread already noted, many of our users don't
care about linuxcounter. Do you think they will actually care about
your project?
Not that I'm against it. I'm just trying to be realistic here. To
convince Gentoo users, you have to really convince them that their
privacy will be respected and they will be able to make most of it
having to submit the least amount of data.
This also implies that the output has to be really useful. But that's
an entirely different topic that can't be answered without more
thorough thinking.
> Let's agree on following - I'll design the system in details on paper
> but no code will be produced at this stage.
>
> When it's ready (~ 1.5 months) I'll get back here and share the design
> sketches with you.
To be honest, I think ~1.5 month of paperwork sounds like serious
overcomplexity. Please also remember that we're very limited on time,
and work of ~1.5 month sounds like something we won't be able to read.
Please try to think in smaller parts. Small, useful tools that could be
integrated in the future to provide a better experience.
Also, please try to look for other Gentoo projects that worked on
similar topics, gentoostats for example. You may make use of some of
the past experiences.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread