public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brad Laue <brad@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-core@gentoo.org
Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa.
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:24:33 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3F141CB1.70704@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030715094234.6f6f2636.zhen@gentoo.org>

John Davis wrote:
> Good day everyone: First, I would like to thank all of those who have
> participated in this conversation, and lambaste those who have
> decided to start a flame war. In order for *anything* to get figured
> out, it is the latter that need time to discuss all avenues
> rationally.

Fair enough. ;)

> 
> Step back for a minute and recognize the ramifications of those
> numbers. The product that we baby and work on is used by over a
> _quarter of a million_ people. Over a _quarter of a million_ people
> rely on our QA procedure for stable packages, our security, our
> openness. No matter what your political philosophy, this fact should
> awe you.

I think this is the crux of all our concern, all management and 
organisational decisions revolve around QA, among other primary concerns 
like architecture and so on.

My opinion is that QA procedures can be created without forming a 
government of sorts, or creating a political landscape. There are 
development cultures which succesfully separate the issues surrounding 
architecture, financing and future directions within the distribution 
from the QA process, by placing it on the outskirts of 'governance', and 
I do think we would be wise to do the same.

> So how can me still deliver the same quality product to all of these
> people? Organization, rules, and voting, to name a few. I referenced
> Debian because they have an exceptional model that is in place and
> working. Yes, I know that Debian is not bleeding edge and their
> releases take forever. Think though, have you ever heard a complaint
> about Debian's stability, not only in Debian Linux, but in their
> management as well?

Debian may be stable, but Woody's sheer age really does indicate that 
something is wrong with their development model. I don't imagine 
suggesting a faster paced release model to their core developers would 
be met with much openness, nor would it be put to a vote. FreeBSD and 
RedHat, to name two, have live package build systems (ports/rawhide 
respectively) and cut a release from these every four months on the dot 
with impeccable QA. I don't think I could suggest such a thing to Debian 
developers without being laughed out of the discussion.

Another member of the previous thread mentioned the Linux kernel, if 
briefly. Look at how well it works in its development model. A core 
group of members make decisions as to where the kernel will be in 1, 5, 
10 years, and the rest of the process looks, to the outside world, 
almost entirely haphazard. There is no need for constitutions or 
elections or a legal department, and yet Linux is thriving and growing 
at an extraordinary rate. And it has few enough QA problems that fortune 
100 corporations use it!

It is my contention that the development culture *creates* the product. 
I believe Debian is what it is now because of the way it is managed, and 
Linux is what it is now because of the way *it* is managed.

If I seem staunchly opposed to introducing Debian concepts to Gentoo, 
it's because I am. ;)

My intention though, is not to attempt to close the discussion. If 
through the process an outcome can be reached which seems reasonable to 
all sides, all the better.

Cheers,
Brad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-07-15 15:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-07-15 13:42 [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa John Davis
     [not found] ` <1058280489.2910.27.camel@biproc>
2003-07-15 15:06   ` John Davis
2003-07-15 16:15     ` Grant Goodyear
2003-07-15 15:24 ` Brad Laue [this message]
2003-07-15 17:44   ` [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] " John Davis
2003-07-15 17:46   ` Martin, Stephen
2003-07-15 17:47     ` John Davis
2003-07-15 19:09 ` [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] " Stewart Honsberger
2003-07-15 19:23 ` [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part III? Daniel Robbins
2003-07-15 20:27   ` John Davis
2003-07-16  0:30     ` Daniel Robbins

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3F141CB1.70704@gentoo.org \
    --to=brad@gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-core@gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox