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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GVKbn-0007Tc-Qh for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:13:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k954CRVX002271; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 04:12:27 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k954AYHd005633 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 04:10:35 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8ADA646F3 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 04:10:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EBjb0Hh76LDk for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 04:10:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BBF647F4 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 04:10:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GVKYe-0005A9-CW for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:10:04 +0200 Received: from ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.97.209]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:10:04 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:10:04 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: "Duncan" <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 04:09:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20061004070014.843d851d.tcort@gentoo.org> <4523BA19.30208@gentoo.org> <20061004171603.133e46a5@c1358217.kevquinn.com> <3b09e8e90610040844y400d744bpb3c4e4b41b56fdeb@mail.gmail.com> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: pan 0.115 (Mrs. Kerr Says Remember the Tip Jar) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: e4284c42-e936-454c-844d-24ca1a81a222 X-Archives-Hash: e16d5039c765413545f289cb3e2357c1 "Thomas Cort" posted 3b09e8e90610040844y400d744bpb3c4e4b41b56fdeb@mail.gmail.com, excerpted below, on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0400: > My view is that currently we cannot offer the same level of support > for the minority arches as the majority arches because we don't have > enough people involved. I think that spreading the developers too thin > leads to conflict and burnout. Look at NetBSD and debian. They are > trying to be everything for everyone. How is that working for them, > how is it working for us? I think we should be more focused, but > that's just my opinion. There are two separate problems with simply removing them, however. One, it has already been mentioned that the minority archs don't tend to be the bottleneck, so removing them isn't likely to help. In addition, the minority archs don't bother anyone not on them, except for maintainers looking to dump old versions, and that could arguably be better and more directly addressed with a policy of time-limitting the holdup effect -- if there has been no updates on a keyword bug in (say) 90 days, dropping the last arch or ~arch keyworded version is allowed. As it's related, it should be pointed out that simply forcing every dev onto at least one arch team isn't going to help much either -- as long as Gentoo is staffed by volunteers, you aren't going to be able to force them to do anything substancial on a team they aren't voluntarily on anyway, and all the inactive arch-team devs will only hide the problem. Additionally, that was the de facto situation with x86 previously, and it simply didn't work. Two and potentially far worse, you have the demotivation problem. Picking on a rather active dev as a prime example, Flameeyes' Gentoo/alt-freebsd is certainly a minority arch, one that he spends a decent amount of time on that could arguably be spent on more mainline projects. Yet he remains very active in other areas as well, and simply telling him to packup his Gentoo/fbsd project as it's not wanted would be incredibly demotivating, and could eventually cause us to lose him and all the stuff he does for the /rest/ of the tree (a quite a lot, from where I sit as a user, and I'm very likely missing the largest share of it). That's not even counting how his work on Gentoo/FBSD has improved the quality of the tree for everyone, including those like me who have no direct interest in FBSD at all. Flameeyes isn't the only one. If you shut down all the minority archs and projects, you demotivate some of our best and brightest, and will very likely eventually lose them. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list