From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D53BE138334 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 21:32:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A723E0837; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 21:32:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34A65E0826 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 21:32:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id k24so1274836ioc.4 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:32:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=AJWKGldsTD46OT22TuBYkP64EhUQN9KVhzhnapAEWU0=; b=ldRuI1Tl6FH0CoEMSdZEkOia6Y4OQC7Uu67u2On7B+9cORsUNFPkz4MwcFM+yKO9CN zFLIdb9KTKvl29FGDTZ3udyK2PoNWUc5r6CUphDT05ITuYEyirgZq52pQCgscUPPA76M tm8XRqMvAox2R6PqqfvYRXnGigUp63Z37iloz+jpL1TOoF1h/AOrHTYVK1zigwIykINq n0aDGbltBpaiDFkFs5LDYd9RxfBn0taeSzFAzO82wauKjgyFtH9h+ryJX0rzeKMcG0mM /5CTcNFg+uvl5Mo5L/Dt6wVQRc181m83Zjb6pOMTQuGq+IMcy8XiKcfNIXHIphjmhhwY tMIA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=AJWKGldsTD46OT22TuBYkP64EhUQN9KVhzhnapAEWU0=; b=itF4D4EjPmB4aSC0GZFzep5539QIZZRESznkZ7iUqVM1wV2efEXPOqi9GNsiLnCBRD P4/7mMOweEVVz3OceuW74po3B69EbvlHFzzxTkDNgI2AAmT0IoTvo3GlNCtVFrcHJ7n7 SUbn5HnSoKmMKYtNX1Byw9m0Xa+IYNccSWYEd1LaHt0l89VTprpXPup4bigPUT3XgdDx 1f95Vzv1e8vGYT5k58ffWAV+fb38NT+i97sjOME/wEEGDEC4t1x6gV1dTnrXPX1ZGXDq 5bPvMdZ8tzZraUndrtKKyEr62BQJWiH6A6i7HmcUe6Ym3BUgHIBnV3d4gP0R6y4sed0K Ybwg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX+51HnWRdYUHpSJQNxT1GBo8a2SMwjxQZEidVLRlFSPDGjwnBU cdAQCqwO0EVTc1hD3E9gNByRZfLh/eA4bXuspLU/DrhGeUk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwA2RGgS4VBT+YUpz3d6X79TwygyeH8yGxInO6uNQeNCBSHGjZXcqqKJwkpBPmgLsn4oxlNw+gdUagfwqteWD0= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b2d1:: with SMTP id b200mr3685254iof.20.1575495131563; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:32:11 -0800 (PST) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0ebb1850c54ab69714e4f5e3525e8a40c74cb519.camel@gentoo.org> <20191205042109.31400c62@katipo2.lan> <882242c53652bb5844fe0b315f384c9bbf5354a7.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <882242c53652bb5844fe0b315f384c9bbf5354a7.camel@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:32:00 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Usefulness of HOMEPAGE=https://www.gentoo.org To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a99cd70598e78bc2" X-Archives-Salt: 8ee80149-5b12-40c7-8c99-0cfa4055d960 X-Archives-Hash: 4a2afed21c4e8fecdeb839149c52f60f --000000000000a99cd70598e78bc2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:26 AM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny w= rote: > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:24 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote: > > On 12/4/19 5:21 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > > On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:36:07 +0100 > > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > > > > > > My point is: gentoo.org as a HOMEPAGE sucks. Please use something > more > > > > specific instead. Even link to gitweb would be more helpful becaus= e > it > > > > would at least be relevant to the package in question. > > > I agree so much I would support the addition of a QA check for this. > > > > > I take it you haven't checked the CI results lately? Reaction to that > > probably spawned this ML thread. > > > > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html > > Actually, I've requested that check. However, I didn't expect that many > packages to be affected. > > Given that it's open season on me lately, and apparently people feel > offended when bugs are reported for their packages, I've decided to > start by trying to make people realize the problem globally first. > When QA was run by Diego, he suffered some of the same problems. A lot of this comes down to three factors (IMHO.) - Lack of buy-in from developers. When you add a QA thing, you are asking people to do more work. If they don't agree with the work, they have no real incentive to do it. I don't see a lot of incentive building here and so for some efforts adoption of fixes is slow / low. In addition, expectations are often not set (at all[1]) or not shared with the group (e.g. QA and the community disagree on the expectation; often in relation to timelines or end goals.) - The above leads to the stick instead of the carrot. Instead of helping people adhere to the policy and recruiting the community to do the work, QA takes an adversarial approach where the policy is wielded as a cudgel to 'force' people to do the work. This then leads to the comments like the above (e.g. "its open season on mgorny") because often forcing people to do work on a tight timetable does not generate trust or goodwill and encourages the adversarial relationship between the community and QA. - This perception that perfection is required and imperfect packages are ripe for removal. This again creates this air of anxiety between a package maintainer and QA where QA can basically invent new reasons to mask arbitrary[0] packages. -A [0] I'm not suggesting this is the intent of the QA team, but it's one narrative that a non-QA member might have and the QA team is fairly adversarial and often takes little action to dissuade this narrative from taking hold. [1] Some good examples are things like EAPI deprecation https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/aef37db23c862865fffdd24071fc= e1ec. You notice that Andreas has articulated some goal (no more EAPI2), has clearly specified the packages that need work, and has encouraged people to help achieve the goal. Even the tone is positive. I want to help! This is different from messaging like "Hey you have 7 days to fix your EAPI2 packages or I will mask them!". This may encourage me to save my packages (from the evil QA team) but it doesn't make me love the QA team at all; it makes me feel negative feelings. > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > > --000000000000a99cd70598e78bc2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:26 AM Micha=C5= =82 G=C3=B3rny <m= gorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:24 +020= 0, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> On 12/4/19 5:21 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:36:07 +0100
> > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > My point is: gentoo.org as a HOMEPAGE sucks.=C2=A0 Please use so= mething more
> > > specific instead.=C2=A0 Even link to gitweb would be more he= lpful because it
> > > would at least be relevant to the package in question.
> > I agree so much I would support the addition of a QA check for th= is.
> >
> I take it you haven't checked the CI results lately? Reaction to t= hat
> probably spawned this ML thread.
>
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/= gentoo-ci/output.html

Actually, I've requested that check.=C2=A0 However, I didn't expect= that many
packages to be affected.

Given that it's open season on me lately, and apparently people feel offended when bugs are reported for their packages, I've decided to
start by trying to make people realize the problem globally first.

When QA was run by Diego, he suffered some of t= he same problems. A lot of this comes down to three factors (IMHO.)

=C2=A0- Lack of buy-in from developers. When you add a QA= thing, you are asking people to do more work. If they don't agree with= the work, they have no real incentive to do it. I don't see a lot of i= ncentive building here and so for some efforts adoption of fixes is slow / = low. In addition, expectations are often not set (at all[1]) or not shared = with the group (e.g. QA and the community disagree on the expectation; ofte= n in relation to timelines or end goals.)
=C2=A0- The above leads= to the stick instead of the carrot. Instead of helping people adhere to th= e policy and recruiting the community to do the work, QA takes an adversari= al approach where the policy is wielded as a cudgel to 'force' peop= le to do the work. This then leads to the comments like the above (e.g. &qu= ot;its open season on mgorny") because often forcing people to do work= on a tight timetable does not generate trust or goodwill and encourages th= e adversarial relationship between the community and QA.
=C2=A0- = This perception that perfection is required and imperfect packages are ripe= for removal. This again creates this air of anxiety between a package main= tainer and QA where QA can basically invent new reasons to mask arbitrary[0= ] packages.

-A

[0] I'm not sugge= sting this is the intent of the QA team, but it's one narrative that a = non-QA member might have and the QA team is fairly adversarial and often ta= kes little action to dissuade this narrative from taking hold.
[1= ] Some good examples are things like EAPI deprecation=C2=A0https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/aef37db23= c862865fffdd24071fce1ec. You notice that=C2=A0Andreas has articulated s= ome goal (no more EAPI2), has clearly specified the packages that need work= , and has encouraged people to help achieve the goal. Even the tone is posi= tive. I want to help! This is different from messaging like "Hey you h= ave 7 days to fix your EAPI2=C2=A0packages or I will mask them!". This= may encourage me to save my packages (from the evil QA team) but it doesn&= #39;t make me love the QA team at all; it makes me feel negative feelings.<= /div>


--
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny

--000000000000a99cd70598e78bc2--