From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JhPNu-0001bx-G3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:21:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A26AE0AF7; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:21:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173005pub.verizon.net (vms173005pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.5]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6B9E0AF7 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:21:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([71.242.208.200]) by vms173005.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JYR00L9Z3IAV601@vms173005.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:15:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677E118C6D5 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:21:18 -0400 From: Richard Freeman Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April In-reply-to: <47F4CBAC.4090609@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <47F4D9CE.9070906@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <20080401092610.EEF7467349@smtp.gentoo.org> <47F3F098.1050508@gentoo.org> <47F3F860.6080200@gentoo.org> <1207182913.16176.49.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <47F4CBAC.4090609@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080301) X-Archives-Salt: e0975d56-15c1-45d2-8fa2-37489bc60979 X-Archives-Hash: 3fee7b10e1807e4f266109f25619cb93 Mike Auty wrote: > So the still unanswered question appears to be, would we like Gentoo to > have fewer packages and less choice but greater QA, stability and a feel > of professionalism, or would we like to have more packages and choice > but a worse QA record, make some mistakes, and have a more > community-based feel? If you're going to try to answer this question > please be delicate with your repsonses, in the past I can recall > developers leaving over exactly this divide... > Well, Gentoo is about choice, so why not be both? We already have ~arch/arch and overlays, and if the need really arose we could have more levels of QA. Then everybody can have the level of bleeding-edge that they desire. Maybe all we need is to make it easier to contribute to overlays and use overlays, and then have a moderately-higher general level of QA in the main tree, and then the highest level of QA for stable (particularly for system packages). You could even have the opposite - maybe a super-stable overlay for stuff like server apps with backported patches that users could elect to take priority even over the portage tree. The only real gap is a general facility for assigning priority for repositories (possibly on a per-package basis), and maybe a GUI for managing everything. Regardless, as long as devs actually follow policy I don't see any need to boot them. Maybe very long periods of inactivity should result in having accounts locked as a security measure (so that we don't end up with hundreds of ssh keys with commit access floating around who knows where). Booting out lots of devs just takes a limited set of resources and limits them further. If anything we want to find a way to let more people contribute in a significant way - not less... -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list