[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 595 bytes --]

All,

Apologies for the short notice in advance.

In a little more than one week, the council will meet again.  This is
the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
agenda to vote on.

Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
suggested one (since the last meeting).

The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of
December 2011.

Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1190 bytes --]

Dear all, 

I would like to suggest that we adopt the "sighted pages" system similar as 
used in the german wikipedia for our wiki, and am submitting that for mailing 
list and council discussion and / or decision. 

What does that mean?
* Anyone can still edit a page
* A limited amount of people can proofread a page and mark it as "correct" 
(here: Gentoo devs).
* If you are browsing anonymously, you get the newest "correct" page.
* If you are logged in to the wiki, you get the newest page. If this version 
has not been marked "correct" yet, that is displayed as warning message.

Why?
* If you browse an "official" wiki, you may expect some sort of "official" 
documentation, not something where $Random_Dude has just inserted "rm -rf /*"
* However, we still want to encourage users to contribute.
* Using the "sighted pages" system may enable us to combine both advantages.
* On the long run, this may make it easier to move official documentation into 
the wiki. (Having two incompatible doc formats will cause us pain.)

Opinions?

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

[Markos Chandras]

On 12/04/2011 12:14 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to suggest that we adopt the "sighted pages" system similar as
> used in the german wikipedia for our wiki, and am submitting that for mailing
> list and council discussion and / or decision.
>
Andreas,
I don't think this has anything to do with the council. The council 
cannot interfere with individual projects. I believe your request should 
be addressed to the wiki@ people directly

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-project] adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't think this has anything to do with the council. The council cannot
> interfere with individual projects.

Arguably the ONLY thing the council does is interfere with individual
projects - that is its sole reason for existence.  The DevRel project
already settles disputes, the PMS project already designs EAPIs, and
so on.

However, projects are self-governing and this creates the potential
issue of clashes with the needs of the distro as a whole, so we have a
Council as an appeal of last resort.  A project's decision does not
necessarily speak for the whole distro - the Council does.

If the Council were to completely refrain from interfering with
projects, it could accomplish nothing.

> I believe your request should be
> addressed to the wiki@ people directly

This is of course the correct initial step.  Work within the projects
until an issue actually arises. However, I could easily see the
Council getting involved here, as this would impact both the GLDP and
the Wiki projects.

That said, I think this is a good idea - why have our documentation
split in two?

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 12/04/2011 12:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
> That said, I think this is a good idea - why have our
> documentation split in two?
> 
> Rich
> 
This is not the case and we have been discussing this over and over.
The wiki is not there to replace official docs.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=RabP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is not the case and we have been discussing this over and over.
> The wiki is not there to replace official docs.

What are the main problems with this - especially if a "sighted pages"
approach is taken?  I would think the main issue with a wiki would be
officialness and the proposed approach could potentially address that.

Obviously an issue with moving to a wiki would be the mass of
documentation already out there, but the logical approach would be to
move it over time, and perhaps cite the existing docs in the wiki
where possible.  Then if documentation gets stale it could be
re-written and "approved."

Just because the wiki isn't CURRENTLY there to replace official docs
doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about whether it one day could.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04-12-2011 12:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Markos Chandras 
> <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> This is not the case and we have been discussing this over and 
>> over. The wiki is not there to replace official docs.
> 
> What are the main problems with this - especially if a "sighted 
> pages" approach is taken?  I would think the main issue with a
> wiki would be officialness and the proposed approach could
> potentially address that.
> 
> Obviously an issue with moving to a wiki would be the mass of 
> documentation already out there, but the logical approach would be 
> to move it over time, and perhaps cite the existing docs in the 
> wiki where possible.  Then if documentation gets stale it could be
>  re-written and "approved."
> 
> Just because the wiki isn't CURRENTLY there to replace official 
> docs doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about whether it one day 
> could.
> 
> Rich

Richard,

the format of the official documents is something best left for the
GDP to discuss. Whenever the discussion about moving the official docs
to wiki format was raised in the past, the GDP was very clear about
not wanting to go down that route. With time, that position might
change, but in any case that's a discussion that should be held within
the GDP project.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=RWNw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Sonntag 04 Dezember 2011, 01:25:52 schrieb Markos Chandras:
> I don't think this has anything to do with the council. The council
> cannot interfere with individual projects. I believe your request should
> be addressed to the wiki@ people directly

You're right, I should have addressed the wiki team first... sorry, it was 
late yesterday, I was tired and it seemed like a good idea.

On the other hand, this is something that everyone writing "official docs" 
should be interested in...

Cheers, A

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

Re: [gentoo-project] adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

[Rich Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 559 bytes --]

On Dec 4, 2011 12:52 PM, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On the other hand, this is something that everyone writing "official docs"
> should be interested in...
>

I tend to agree - there is no requirement for Devs to create docs for 99%
of the stuff that happens here, let alone create them in a particular
place. As we can see from the recent KDE news item we can expect the wiki
to get a lot more use for stuff that used to go into GLDP. It doesn't hurt
to have better support for this, assuming it isn't onerous to implement...

Rich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 687 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 515 bytes --]

On 12/4/11 1:14 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> I would like to suggest that we adopt the "sighted pages" system similar as 
> used in the german wikipedia for our wiki, and am submitting that for mailing 
> list and council discussion and / or decision. 
> [...]
> * If you browse an "official" wiki, you may expect some sort of "official" 
> documentation, not something where $Random_Dude has just inserted "rm -rf /*"
> * However, we still want to encourage users to contribute.

Sounds good to me.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1454 bytes --]

Fabian Groffen schrieb:
> All,
> 
> Apologies for the short notice in advance.
> 
> In a little more than one week, the council will meet again.  This is
> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
> agenda to vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of
> December 2011.
> 
> Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.
> 
> 

1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions
be reverted?

The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14
hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the
discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus
about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like
to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic
in which case the consensus result should be implemented.

2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet?

If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform
users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in
mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty
easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1250 bytes --]

On 04-12-2011 15:17:28 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> 1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions
> be reverted?
> 
> The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14
> hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the
> discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus
> about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like
> to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic
> in which case the consensus result should be implemented.

Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage uses,
right?  Also known to some as the parallel build output.

> 2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet?
> 
> If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform
> users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in
> mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty
> easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour.

You suggest a news item here?  Or do you want Portage in quiet mode to
print elog messages?  (If I'm not mistaken, it already does.)


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1595 bytes --]

Fabian Groffen schrieb:
> On 04-12-2011 15:17:28 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> 1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions
>> be reverted?
>>
>> The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14
>> hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the
>> discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus
>> about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like
>> to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic
>> in which case the consensus result should be implemented.
> 
> Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage uses,
> right?  Also known to some as the parallel build output.

Yes

> 
>> 2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet?
>>
>> If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform
>> users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in
>> mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty
>> easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour.
> 
> You suggest a news item here?  Or do you want Portage in quiet mode to
> print elog messages?  (If I'm not mistaken, it already does.)
> 
> 

If this does not get reverted and if it gets accepted to be the default,
i would request a news item, when it goes into a stable version of
portage, since a good amount of people wondered, why the portage output
changed (default for --quiet-build was changed), why it was done and how
they could change that behaviour.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 12/04/2011 03:42 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Fabian Groffen schrieb:
>> Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage
>> uses, right?  Also known to some as the parallel build output.
> 
> Yes
I agree that the decision was made too fast but reverting seems like a
joke to me. People will think that we are making fun of them by
changing the defaults all the time. Imho it is too late to go back.

> 
> If this does not get reverted and if it gets accepted to be the
> default, i would request a news item, when it goes into a stable
> version of portage, since a good amount of people wondered, why the
> portage output changed (default for --quiet-build was changed), why
> it was done and how they could change that behaviour.
> 
I certainly agree with that. People keep wondering why portage is so
quiet.

In any case I believe the council should discuss these problems in the
upcoming meeting

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=ZBiP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Mike Gilbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 711 bytes --]

On 12/04/2011 11:26 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 03:42 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Fabian Groffen schrieb:
>>> Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage
>>> uses, right?  Also known to some as the parallel build output.
> 
>> Yes
> I agree that the decision was made too fast but reverting seems like a
> joke to me. People will think that we are making fun of them by
> changing the defaults all the time. Imho it is too late to go back.

Hopefully the meeting will result in an actual answer (yes/no to quiet
by default). It would be a shame if nothing is done simply because the
council does not meet often enough to make changes until it is "too late".


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 991 bytes --]

Markos Chandras schrieb:
> On 12/04/2011 03:42 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Fabian Groffen schrieb:
>>> Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage
>>> uses, right?  Also known to some as the parallel build output.
> 
>> Yes
> I agree that the decision was made too fast but reverting seems like a
> joke to me. People will think that we are making fun of them by
> changing the defaults all the time. Imho it is too late to go back.

Such a decision would surely not be a joke. We are talking about the
testing version of portage here, not the stable one. While people might
wonder, why it was changed back, something like that should be expected,
if you dont use stable keywords.
Additionally, everyone could do whatever he wants with the "too late to
go back" - "argument". Just wait until after council meeting, do your
changes and claim "too late to go back", so effectively removing the
ability to decide about a question for the council? ;-)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 12/04/2011 05:55 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> On 12/04/2011 03:42 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> Fabian Groffen schrieb:
>>>> Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent
>>>> Portage uses, right?  Also known to some as the parallel
>>>> build output.
>> 
>>> Yes
>> I agree that the decision was made too fast but reverting seems
>> like a joke to me. People will think that we are making fun of
>> them by changing the defaults all the time. Imho it is too late
>> to go back.
> 
> Such a decision would surely not be a joke. We are talking about
> the testing version of portage here, not the stable one. While
> people might wonder, why it was changed back, something like that
> should be expected, if you dont use stable keywords. Additionally,
> everyone could do whatever he wants with the "too late to go back"
> - "argument". Just wait until after council meeting, do your 
> changes and claim "too late to go back", so effectively removing
> the ability to decide about a question for the council? ;-)
> 
All I am saying is that the change is there for more than 2 weeks.
Imho it seems suboptimal (from user's experience perspective) to go
back to the old behavior without causing extra frustration.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=AgZW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Markos Chandras schrieb:
> All I am saying is that the change is there for more than 2 weeks.
> Imho it seems suboptimal (from user's experience perspective) to go
> back to the old behavior without causing extra frustration.

You can check the forums thread and poll for an indication how much
frustration this would create. Also the question is whether stabilizing
a quiet-build portage causes more frustration than reverting the change
in unstable.

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901858.html
The poll has an unusually high number of respondents, maybe an
indication of how controversial that topic is.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Dale]

Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> All I am saying is that the change is there for more than 2 weeks.
>> Imho it seems suboptimal (from user's experience perspective) to go
>> back to the old behavior without causing extra frustration.
> You can check the forums thread and poll for an indication how much
> frustration this would create. Also the question is whether stabilizing
> a quiet-build portage causes more frustration than reverting the change
> in unstable.
>
> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901858.html
> The poll has an unusually high number of respondents, maybe an
> indication of how controversial that topic is.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>
>

I might also add, there have already been a couple people on the mailing 
lists wanting it back to the old way and thinking something in portage 
got broken.  Once it hits stable, there will likely be a lot of those 
threads both on the mailing lists and forums.  I actually added the 
option to my sig hoping people will see it and not have to ask.

I know there is plans for a news item but I have to also wonder if 
people are going to read and actually realize what the change was.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Patrick Lauer]

On 12/05/11 00:26, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 12/04/2011 03:42 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Fabian Groffen schrieb:
>>> Ok, you mean the --quiet-build=y default that most recent Portage
>>> uses, right?  Also known to some as the parallel build output.
>> Yes
> I agree that the decision was made too fast but reverting seems like a
> joke to me. People will think that we are making fun of them by
> changing the defaults all the time. Imho it is too late to go back.

Great, so if I just patch stuff I can also claim that now it's too late 
to revert?
That's a nice non-sequitur :)
>
>> If this does not get reverted and if it gets accepted to be the
>> default, i would request a news item, when it goes into a stable
>> version of portage, since a good amount of people wondered, why the
>> portage output changed (default for --quiet-build was changed), why
>> it was done and how they could change that behaviour.
>>
> I certainly agree with that. People keep wondering why portage is so
> quiet.
And spend much more time trying to find them silly logfiles now that we 
hide the output. I really enjoy having to fix yet another bad default 
everywhere just so I see *why* things fail ...

>
> In any case I believe the council should discuss these problems in the
> upcoming meeting
>
Ack.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> And spend much more time trying to find them silly logfiles now that we hide
> the output. I really enjoy having to fix yet another bad default everywhere
> just so I see *why* things fail ...

Unless something has changed the logfile name including full path is
printed when there is an error.  So, it is just a matter of copy/paste
into a cat and you can watch the whole thing scroll by and even
pretend it is compiling really fast while it is doing it.  :)

It seems like a pretty sane default to assume that most packaged build
without issues - after all, that is basically the goal, right?

That is probably why the forum post is at 52-48 - it really isn't that
obvious a call one way or the other.  In any case, it doesn't affect
me anyway since I use parallel build and I trust the Council to at
least provide some kind of closure...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Rich Freeman schrieb:
> That is probably why the forum post is at 52-48 - it really isn't that
> obvious a call one way or the other.  In any case, it doesn't affect
> me anyway since I use parallel build and I trust the Council to at
> least provide some kind of closure...

I don't know which forum post you are referring to, but in the linked
forums.g.o poll[1] the old vs. the new default is currently at 52-28
with the rest opting for the compromise or something else.

Note: It was already pointed out that this number is probably not
representative and may be skewed in one direction or the other due to
the "vocal minority" effect. It is just a small piece of data.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn


[1] https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901858.html

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Rich Freeman]

2011/12/4 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org>:
> I don't know which forum post you are referring to, but in the linked
> forums.g.o poll[1] the old vs. the new default is currently at 52-28
> with the rest opting for the compromise or something else.

-v is not itself a default, so if it controls the quiet output then
essentially a stock gentoo emerge command will be quiet.  I'd consider
that just another variance on quiet-by-default.

Otherwise the poll is like asking Americans whether they prefer the
Republicans, Democracts, Greens, Communists, Socialists, Moderate
Democrats, Conservative Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Ordinary
Democrats, Good-looking Democrats, or Reformed Democrats, and then
pronouncing that Republicans outnumber Democrats 48%-10%.

I won't dispute that a majority seem to prefer the old way - but 52-28
isn't really a clear depiction of this.  And no, this shouldn't
warrant having the elections team run a Condorcent vote (which should
handle issues like this).

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Rich Freeman schrieb:

> -v is not itself a default, so if it controls the quiet output then
> essentially a stock gentoo emerge command will be quiet.  I'd consider
> that just another variance on quiet-by-default.

If you take it like this:
69% of respondents want to see build output when -v is given (52+17).
28% disagree with that.

45% don't want to see build output when -v is not given (28+17). 52%
disagree with that.

Among the people preferring to see build output, making -v control the
default seems to be considered an acceptable compromise. So wouldn't
that be great? Hiding build output by default, while still satisfying
most critics of this idea.

> And no, this shouldn't
> warrant having the elections team run a Condorcent vote (which should
> handle issues like this).

I already stated that I would leave the call to zmedico as lead
developer of portage. Giving him the arguments and the data to make the
decision, but watching whether his reasoning is sound. That means
clearly saying where it is based on fact and where it is based on opinion.
(I wouldn't mind if he made an entirely opinion based decision, as long
as he didn't claim it to be fact-based)


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Zac Medico]

> 2011/12/4 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org>:
>> I already stated that I would leave the call to zmedico as lead
>> developer of portage. Giving him the arguments and the data to make the
>> decision, but watching whether his reasoning is sound. That means
>> clearly saying where it is based on fact and where it is based on opinion.
>> (I wouldn't mind if he made an entirely opinion based decision, as long
>> as he didn't claim it to be fact-based)

I think it's difficult or impossible to get an reasonably unbiased
sample of the population of Gentoo users as a whole. Voting is only fair
when you can get a reasonably unbiased sample of the whole population.
Due to human nature, people who are unhappy with the change in defaults
are more likely to express their opinion publicly than people who
welcome the change in defaults. This tends to bias statistics in favor
of the unhappy people.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Zac Medico schrieb:
>> 2011/12/4 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org>:
>>> I already stated that I would leave the call to zmedico as lead
>>> developer of portage. Giving him the arguments and the data to make the
>>> decision, but watching whether his reasoning is sound. That means
>>> clearly saying where it is based on fact and where it is based on opinion.
>>> (I wouldn't mind if he made an entirely opinion based decision, as long
>>> as he didn't claim it to be fact-based)
> 
> I think it's difficult or impossible to get an reasonably unbiased
> sample of the population of Gentoo users as a whole. Voting is only fair
> when you can get a reasonably unbiased sample of the whole population.

This is something I can agree with.

> Due to human nature, people who are unhappy with the change in defaults
> are more likely to express their opinion publicly than people who
> welcome the change in defaults. This tends to bias statistics in favor
> of the unhappy people.

But this is precisely what I meant above and in my older post. You have
no idea to which extent this effect is present, much less whether other
effects which could introduce bias in the other direction outweigh your
"unhappy with the change in defaults" group.
You keep on repeating this as if it were fact, but have no data to base
this claim on.

One way to investigate would be to sample statements in the forum
thread, and determining how many responded with personal preference and
how many with practical arguments. It would still have to be accounted
for those who try to rationalize their pre-conceived opinion with ad-hoc
arguments, but better than nothing at all which is the current case.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Zac Medico]

On 12/05/2011 02:13 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Zac Medico schrieb:
>>> 2011/12/4 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org>:
>>>> I already stated that I would leave the call to zmedico as lead
>>>> developer of portage. Giving him the arguments and the data to make the
>>>> decision, but watching whether his reasoning is sound. That means
>>>> clearly saying where it is based on fact and where it is based on opinion.
>>>> (I wouldn't mind if he made an entirely opinion based decision, as long
>>>> as he didn't claim it to be fact-based)
>>
>> I think it's difficult or impossible to get an reasonably unbiased
>> sample of the population of Gentoo users as a whole. Voting is only fair
>> when you can get a reasonably unbiased sample of the whole population.
> 
> This is something I can agree with.

Yeah, I think anyone with a cursory knowledge of statistical sampling
can agree with this. On the other hand, it seems apparent that lots of
people are completely oblivious to the challenges involved in obtaining
reasonably unbiased statistical samples.

>> Due to human nature, people who are unhappy with the change in defaults
>> are more likely to express their opinion publicly than people who
>> welcome the change in defaults. This tends to bias statistics in favor
>> of the unhappy people.
> 
> But this is precisely what I meant above and in my older post. You have
> no idea to which extent this effect is present, much less whether other
> effects which could introduce bias in the other direction outweigh your
> "unhappy with the change in defaults" group.
> You keep on repeating this as if it were fact, but have no data to base
> this claim on.

One person's common-sense behavioral model is another person's baseless
claim.

> One way to investigate would be to sample statements in the forum
> thread, and determining how many responded with personal preference and
> how many with practical arguments. It would still have to be accounted
> for those who try to rationalize their pre-conceived opinion with ad-hoc
> arguments, but better than nothing at all which is the current case.

Sure, but that seems like more of an academic exercise than a practical
one. I think we'll better of with a judicial approach, where a group of
judges weighs a set of pros and cons. Gentoo's council is the closest
thing to that we have to a judiciary.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Zac Medico schrieb:
> One person's common-sense behavioral model is another person's baseless
> claim.

Claims don't have to be based on data. You can come to a conclusion from
experience/knowledge of working/researching/studying in a particular
subject, or from opinions of those who did. Or you can say that this is
your idea of "common sense". Or your can say that it is derived from
your imagination.

All these claims are valid and deserve attention, but in a discussion
should be clearly labelled as what they are.

>> One way to investigate would be to sample statements in the forum
>> thread, and determining how many responded with personal preference and
>> how many with practical arguments. It would still have to be accounted
>> for those who try to rationalize their pre-conceived opinion with ad-hoc
>> arguments, but better than nothing at all which is the current case.
> 
> Sure, but that seems like more of an academic exercise than a practical
> one. I think we'll better of with a judicial approach, where a group of
> judges weighs a set of pros and cons. Gentoo's council is the closest
> thing to that we have to a judiciary.

I have just given an example of what I would have considered data/fact
regarding the bias claim.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Zac Medico]

On 12/05/2011 03:09 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Zac Medico schrieb:
>> One person's common-sense behavioral model is another person's baseless
>> claim.
> 
> Claims don't have to be based on data. You can come to a conclusion from
> experience/knowledge of working/researching/studying in a particular
> subject, or from opinions of those who did. Or you can say that this is
> your idea of "common sense". Or your can say that it is derived from
> your imagination.
> 
> All these claims are valid and deserve attention, but in a discussion
> should be clearly labelled as what they are.

My intention wasn't to present anything as fact. It was to provide a
hypothetical mechanism for sampling bias, in order to demonstrate the
kinds of challenges involved in statistical analysis.

>>> One way to investigate would be to sample statements in the forum
>>> thread, and determining how many responded with personal preference and
>>> how many with practical arguments. It would still have to be accounted
>>> for those who try to rationalize their pre-conceived opinion with ad-hoc
>>> arguments, but better than nothing at all which is the current case.
>>
>> Sure, but that seems like more of an academic exercise than a practical
>> one. I think we'll better of with a judicial approach, where a group of
>> judges weighs a set of pros and cons. Gentoo's council is the closest
>> thing to that we have to a judiciary.
> 
> I have just given an example of what I would have considered data/fact
> regarding the bias claim.

And I think that statistics are basically useless in the current
context, due to the challenges involved in obtaining a reasonably
unbiased sample. That's why I suggest that a judicial approach would be
most appropriate.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Rich Freeman]

2011/12/4 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org>:
> Among the people preferring to see build output, making -v control the
> default seems to be considered an acceptable compromise. So wouldn't
> that be great? Hiding build output by default, while still satisfying
> most critics of this idea.

I don't care that strongly about the defaults since I can change them
(though I'd like them to be reasonably sane so that people take us
seriously).

However, making -v control the output seems like a problem, unless
there is some way to undo this.  A typical workflow for me is to run
emerge -auDNv world to see what is going to build, and then hitting
enter to accept it.  I want to get the verbose USE info with -a/p, but
I don't really care to see build logs flying across the screen.  So,
overloading a single flag to do both sounds problematic unless you
also allow the quiet flag to override it back.  That seems complicated
to me.

That raises another portage flags issue - the fact that we need so
many options to do "the right thing."  Now, I'll argue the right thing
is subjective so we do need to be able to control it.  However, it
seems like we should be able to agree on the best setting for
general-purpose updates is, and make that a single setting.

As far as opinions vs facts go - in software design the only real
facts are whether a particular design satisfies or does not satisfy a
particular requirements specification, or dry measures like
benchmarks/scalability/etc.  Whether a particular design is "better"
is always a matter of opinion, unless better simply means satisfying
more requirements or some other objective measure.  That then just
begets the question as to whether one set of requirements is better
than another, and that is just vodoo.  Actually, even stating as a
"fact" whether a program even meets a requirement is extraordinarily
difficult for all but the most trivial programs - you can't even prove
conclusively whether the program will always terminate short of
exhaustively testing all possible input.

That's why we could perpetuate this thread for six months and never
really resolve the issue, and ultimately sometimes you just need a
council to weigh in with their opinion, when everybody can't live with
the maintainer's opinion.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3561 bytes --]

On 2011.12.05 13:25, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 2011/12/4 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org>:
> > Among the people preferring to see build output, making -v control
> the
> > default seems to be considered an acceptable compromise. So 
> wouldn't
> > that be great? Hiding build output by default, while still
> satisfying
> > most critics of this idea.
> 
> I don't care that strongly about the defaults since I can change them
> (though I'd like them to be reasonably sane so that people take us
> seriously).
> 
> However, making -v control the output seems like a problem, unless
> there is some way to undo this.  A typical workflow for me is to run
> emerge -auDNv world to see what is going to build, and then hitting
> enter to accept it.  I want to get the verbose USE info with -a/p, 
> but
> I don't really care to see build logs flying across the screen.  So,
> overloading a single flag to do both sounds problematic unless you
> also allow the quiet flag to override it back.  That seems 
> complicated
> to me.
> 
> That raises another portage flags issue - the fact that we need so
> many options to do "the right thing."  Now, I'll argue the right 
> thing
> is subjective so we do need to be able to control it.  However, it
> seems like we should be able to agree on the best setting for
> general-purpose updates is, and make that a single setting.
> 
> As far as opinions vs facts go - in software design the only real
> facts are whether a particular design satisfies or does not satisfy a
> particular requirements specification, or dry measures like
> benchmarks/scalability/etc.  Whether a particular design is "better"
> is always a matter of opinion, unless better simply means satisfying
> more requirements or some other objective measure.  That then just
> begets the question as to whether one set of requirements is better
> than another, and that is just vodoo.  Actually, even stating as a
> "fact" whether a program even meets a requirement is extraordinarily
> difficult for all but the most trivial programs - you can't even 
> prove
> conclusively whether the program will always terminate short of
> exhaustively testing all possible input.
> 
> That's why we could perpetuate this thread for six months and never
> really resolve the issue, and ultimately sometimes you just need a
> council to weigh in with their opinion, when everybody can't live 
> with
> the maintainer's opinion.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 

Rich,

I'll stir the pot a little.  I'm only replying here as I want to bring 
out a few facts.

1. When portage was created, almost all of us used to build on single 
CPU/core machines.

2. Builds would progress at a speed where the portage output could be 
read as the build progressed.

3. A few sad individuals (including me) could read the portage output 
and know where a build was.

4. The number of parallel makes was low enough for any errors to still 
be in the back buffer.

5. CPUs have grown faster over the years, so the build output has 
scrolled by faster. 


Opinion.
a) With my current system, postage output scrolls too fast for me to 
read.

b) Portage on screen output is now useless to me, since I have to look 
in the build log for errors anyway.

c) This default is well overdue a change to keep up with the times.

Do we want Gentoo to be first into the future and last out of the past?

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Rich Freeman schrieb:
> However, making -v control the output seems like a problem, unless
> there is some way to undo this.  A typical workflow for me is to run
> emerge -auDNv world to see what is going to build, and then hitting
> enter to accept it.  I want to get the verbose USE info with -a/p, but
> I don't really care to see build logs flying across the screen.  So,
> overloading a single flag to do both sounds problematic unless you
> also allow the quiet flag to override it back.  That seems complicated
> to me.

In the compromise proposal, -v would only set the default for
--quiet-build, not override it.

But overloading -v is indeed an issue that has already be mentioned by
zmedico. What do you think of the following proposal:
--verbose-build[=n]
--verbose-install[=n]
--verbose-use[=n]
--verbose-downloadsize[=n]
...
with -v setting the default to y for them all, but still allowing to
override a particular verbose output with its specific option.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 641 bytes --]

On Sunday 04 December 2011 22:07:54 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Rich Freeman schrieb:
> > That is probably why the forum post is at 52-48 - it really isn't that
> > obvious a call one way or the other.  In any case, it doesn't affect
> > me anyway since I use parallel build and I trust the Council to at
> > least provide some kind of closure...
> 
> I don't know which forum post you are referring to, but in the linked
> forums.g.o poll[1] the old vs. the new default is currently at 52-28
> with the rest opting for the compromise or something else.

can't really say "currently" as the poll is closed ;)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> I don't know which forum post you are referring to, but in the linked
>> forums.g.o poll[1] the old vs. the new default is currently at 52-28
>> with the rest opting for the compromise or something else.
> 
> can't really say "currently" as the poll is closed ;)

The poll is not closed, you have to be logged in to vote.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

On Sunday 04 December 2011 22:55:55 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> >> I don't know which forum post you are referring to, but in the linked
> >> forums.g.o poll[1] the old vs. the new default is currently at 52-28
> >> with the rest opting for the compromise or something else.
> > 
> > can't really say "currently" as the poll is closed ;)
> 
> The poll is not closed, you have to be logged in to vote.

i did login ... but i was viewing a cached page afterwards.  thx.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Patrick Lauer]

On 12/05/11 10:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Patrick Lauer<patrick@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>> And spend much more time trying to find them silly logfiles now that we hide
>> the output. I really enjoy having to fix yet another bad default everywhere
>> just so I see *why* things fail ...
> Unless something has changed the logfile name including full path is
> printed when there is an error.  So, it is just a matter of copy/paste
> into a cat and you can watch the whole thing scroll by and even
> pretend it is compiling really fast while it is doing it.  :)
So one useless step added, which might give extra funny output because 
of escaped escape sequences and such funnies, with no benefit for me
>
> It seems like a pretty sane default to assume that most packaged build
> without issues - after all, that is basically the goal, right?
And for those I don't care about the output at all, but when things fail 
I want to see it.
So for me the proper default is "show everything, let me ignore what I 
don't want"

(Plus there are funny cases with clock skew putting builds into a loop 
that are obvious when you see the output, but impossible to catch with 
supressed output. Yey riddles!)
>
> That is probably why the forum post is at 52-48 - it really isn't that
> obvious a call one way or the other.  In any case, it doesn't affect
> me anyway since I use parallel build and I trust the Council to at
> least provide some kind of closure...
>
> Rich
>
Well, for the machines getting fed binpkgs it'd be an ok default, but 
when I build there's a pretty good chance that something funky happens. 
Just try FEATURES="test" emerge -e system ;)

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1439 bytes --]

On Sunday 04 December 2011 22:42:46 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/05/11 10:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> And spend much more time trying to find them silly logfiles now that we
> >> hide the output. I really enjoy having to fix yet another bad default
> >> everywhere just so I see *why* things fail ...
> > 
> > Unless something has changed the logfile name including full path is
> > printed when there is an error.  So, it is just a matter of copy/paste
> > into a cat and you can watch the whole thing scroll by and even
> > pretend it is compiling really fast while it is doing it.  :)
> 
> So one useless step added, which might give extra funny output because
> of escaped escape sequences and such funnies, with no benefit for me

uhh, no.  cat on the log files works perfectly fine in any sane terminal.

> > It seems like a pretty sane default to assume that most packaged build
> > without issues - after all, that is basically the goal, right?
> 
> And for those I don't care about the output at all, but when things fail
> I want to see it.

it's hard to have a conversation when you don't even verify your statements.  
when a build fails, it outputs the entire log.  thus your statement here makes 
no sense at all.

> So for me the proper default is "show everything, let me ignore what I
> don't want"

then change your defaults
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Patrick Lauer]

On 12/05/11 11:52, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 04 December 2011 22:42:46 Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 12/05/11 10:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>>> And spend much more time trying to find them silly logfiles now that we
>>>> hide the output. I really enjoy having to fix yet another bad default
>>>> everywhere just so I see *why* things fail ...
>>> Unless something has changed the logfile name including full path is
>>> printed when there is an error.  So, it is just a matter of copy/paste
>>> into a cat and you can watch the whole thing scroll by and even
>>> pretend it is compiling really fast while it is doing it.  :)
>> So one useless step added, which might give extra funny output because
>> of escaped escape sequences and such funnies, with no benefit for me
> uhh, no.  cat on the log files works perfectly fine in any sane terminal.
Unless the build system became extra happy ...
>
>>> It seems like a pretty sane default to assume that most packaged build
>>> without issues - after all, that is basically the goal, right?
>> And for those I don't care about the output at all, but when things fail
>> I want to see it.
> it's hard to have a conversation when you don't even verify your statements.
> when a build fails, it outputs the entire log.  thus your statement here makes
> no sense at all.
Not all failures are errors, only errors are shown

So I'm still left wondering why things didn't go as planned, but at that 
point the log has already been removed and I have to rebuild things 
after remembering to change defaults ... not that this happened to me or 
anything like that, just that it has happened to me twice now and I'm 
getting tired of spending time on changing defaults that should be sane.
>
>> So for me the proper default is "show everything, let me ignore what I
>> don't want"
> then change your defaults
> -mike
One machine at a time I am ... one chroot at a time ...

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3098 bytes --]

On Sunday 04 December 2011 23:17:55 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/05/11 11:52, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 04 December 2011 22:42:46 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> On 12/05/11 10:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >>>> And spend much more time trying to find them silly logfiles now that
> >>>> we hide the output. I really enjoy having to fix yet another bad
> >>>> default everywhere just so I see *why* things fail ...
> >>> 
> >>> Unless something has changed the logfile name including full path is
> >>> printed when there is an error.  So, it is just a matter of copy/paste
> >>> into a cat and you can watch the whole thing scroll by and even
> >>> pretend it is compiling really fast while it is doing it.  :)
> >> 
> >> So one useless step added, which might give extra funny output because
> >> of escaped escape sequences and such funnies, with no benefit for me
> > 
> > uhh, no.  cat on the log files works perfectly fine in any sane terminal.
> 
> Unless the build system became extra happy ...

i have no idea wtf you're talking about.  i'm just going to go with "you have 
no real examples".

> >>> It seems like a pretty sane default to assume that most packaged build
> >>> without issues - after all, that is basically the goal, right?
> >> 
> >> And for those I don't care about the output at all, but when things fail
> >> I want to see it.
> > 
> > it's hard to have a conversation when you don't even verify your
> > statements. when a build fails, it outputs the entire log.  thus your
> > statement here makes no sense at all.
> 
> Not all failures are errors, only errors are shown

all failures as characterized by "ebuild called `die`" get shown -- portage 
dumps the entire log, thus your need to copy & paste the log file to `cat` is 
garbage.

all "failures" that don't result in an aborted build (e.g. EAPI=0 dodoc on 
missing file) will get "missed".  many of those are logged as QA warnings, but 
it seems default --quiet-build=y will not include these in the log summary.  
this might be useful to fix -- i'll poke Zac about it if he doesn't see this e-
mail.

otherwise, your statement is really way too zen to get anything meaningful out 
of it.  post actual examples of what you're talking about.

> So I'm still left wondering why things didn't go as planned, but at that
> point the log has already been removed and I have to rebuild things
> after remembering to change defaults ... not that this happened to me or
> anything like that, just that it has happened to me twice now and I'm
> getting tired of spending time on changing defaults that should be sane.

the defaults are not aimed at developers.  if you're complaining about the 
defaults in that role, then any arguments along those lines don't really 
belong here.

> >> So for me the proper default is "show everything, let me ignore what I
> >> don't want"
> > 
> > then change your defaults
> 
> One machine at a time I am ... one chroot at a time ...

this is crap
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Zac Medico]

On 12/04/2011 10:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> all "failures" that don't result in an aborted build (e.g. EAPI=0 dodoc on 
> missing file) will get "missed".  many of those are logged as QA warnings, but 
> it seems default --quiet-build=y will not include these in the log summary.  
> this might be useful to fix -- i'll poke Zac about it if he doesn't see this e-
> mail.

This is due to the default PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="log warn error" in
make.globals. The developer profile sets
:PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa", so anyone running
that profile gets the QA warnings automatically.

Maybe it would be fine to enable the QA warnings by default for all
users. I don't feel strongly either way.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1223 bytes --]

On Monday 05 December 2011 01:48:34 Zac Medico wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 10:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > all "failures" that don't result in an aborted build (e.g. EAPI=0 dodoc
> > on missing file) will get "missed".  many of those are logged as QA
> > warnings, but it seems default --quiet-build=y will not include these in
> > the log summary. this might be useful to fix -- i'll poke Zac about it
> > if he doesn't see this e- mail.
> 
> This is due to the default PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="log warn error" in
> make.globals. The developer profile sets
> 
> :PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa", so anyone running
> 
> that profile gets the QA warnings automatically.
> 
> Maybe it would be fine to enable the QA warnings by default for all
> users. I don't feel strongly either way.

hrm.  there's some QA messages i think we should have all our users see by 
default (so they'll report bugs), and there's some i think should be in the 
developer profiles.  although, i think most are in the former category, so 
maybe we shouldn't sweat it for now ?

specifically, i'm thinking of the build type warnings that we label as upstream 
should be shown to devs and not users ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Zac Medico]

On 12/05/2011 08:07 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 05 December 2011 01:48:34 Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 12/04/2011 10:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> all "failures" that don't result in an aborted build (e.g. EAPI=0 dodoc
>>> on missing file) will get "missed".  many of those are logged as QA
>>> warnings, but it seems default --quiet-build=y will not include these in
>>> the log summary. this might be useful to fix -- i'll poke Zac about it
>>> if he doesn't see this e- mail.
>>
>> This is due to the default PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="log warn error" in
>> make.globals. The developer profile sets
>>
>> :PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa", so anyone running
>>
>> that profile gets the QA warnings automatically.
>>
>> Maybe it would be fine to enable the QA warnings by default for all
>> users. I don't feel strongly either way.
> 
> hrm.  there's some QA messages i think we should have all our users see by 
> default (so they'll report bugs), and there's some i think should be in the 
> developer profiles.  although, i think most are in the former category, so 
> maybe we shouldn't sweat it for now ?

Yeah, I don't think it's a major problem. Developers should be setting
PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa" manually if they don't
use the developer profile.

> specifically, i'm thinking of the build type warnings that we label as upstream 
> should be shown to devs and not users ...

We could migrate to ewarn instead of eqawarn for the ones that we want
all users to see by default. Alternatively, we could introduce a new log
level, but that seems redundant.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> Not all failures are errors, only errors are shown
> 
> all failures as characterized by "ebuild called `die`" get shown -- portage 
> dumps the entire log, thus your need to copy & paste the log file to `cat` is 
> garbage.
> 
> all "failures" that don't result in an aborted build (e.g. EAPI=0 dodoc on 
> missing file) will get "missed".  many of those are logged as QA warnings, but 
> it seems default --quiet-build=y will not include these in the log summary.  
> this might be useful to fix -- i'll poke Zac about it if he doesn't see this e-
> mail.
> 
> otherwise, your statement is really way too zen to get anything meaningful out 
> of it.  post actual examples of what you're talking about.

Attached you will find a build.log of trying to build cdrtools on
sparc-solaris prefix. Admittedly a bit exotic, but far from unique incident.

A moderately knowledgeable user would notice that something is wrong
from watching the build output for a couple of seconds. Portage however
proceeds happily because make returns exit status 0.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

[-- Attachment #2: build.log.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 102125 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1672 bytes --]

On Monday 05 December 2011 17:13:26 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> >> Not all failures are errors, only errors are shown
> > 
> > all failures as characterized by "ebuild called `die`" get shown --
> > portage dumps the entire log, thus your need to copy & paste the log
> > file to `cat` is garbage.
> > 
> > all "failures" that don't result in an aborted build (e.g. EAPI=0 dodoc
> > on missing file) will get "missed".  many of those are logged as QA
> > warnings, but it seems default --quiet-build=y will not include these in
> > the log summary. this might be useful to fix -- i'll poke Zac about it
> > if he doesn't see this e- mail.
> > 
> > otherwise, your statement is really way too zen to get anything
> > meaningful out of it.  post actual examples of what you're talking
> > about.
> 
> Attached you will find a build.log of trying to build cdrtools on
> sparc-solaris prefix. Admittedly a bit exotic, but far from unique
> incident.
> 
> A moderately knowledgeable user would notice that something is wrong
> from watching the build output for a couple of seconds. Portage however
> proceeds happily because make returns exit status 0.

portage would always proceed.  the only thing that would stop it is the user 
hitting CTRL+C.  and that requires the user actually be watching the build 
output.  perhaps they would be for a single package, but for general upgrades, 
i doubt you can rely on that.  what would be more likely is they try to run 
`cdrecord`, find it missing, find the build failed, and then file a bug.  that 
workflow really isn't affected by the defaults here.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> A moderately knowledgeable user would notice that something is wrong
>> from watching the build output for a couple of seconds. Portage however
>> proceeds happily because make returns exit status 0.
> 
> portage would always proceed.  the only thing that would stop it is the user 
> hitting CTRL+C.  and that requires the user actually be watching the build 
> output.  perhaps they would be for a single package, but for general upgrades, 
> i doubt you can rely on that.  what would be more likely is they try to run 
> `cdrecord`, find it missing, find the build failed, and then file a bug.  that 
> workflow really isn't affected by the defaults here.
> -mike

In versions prior to cdrecord-3.00 it was actually the case that nothing
at all was installed. That would cause patrick to notice and scroll back
up in his terminal buffer now to see wtf went wrong.

Since 3.00 it installs a cdrecord binary that runs but doesn't actually
talk to hardware. Fun.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyen

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn schrieb:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> what would be more likely is they try to run 
>> `cdrecord`, find it missing, find the build failed, and then file a bug.  that 
>> workflow really isn't affected by the defaults here.
>> -mike
> 
> In versions prior to cdrecord-3.00 it was actually the case that nothing
> at all was installed. That would cause patrick to notice and scroll back
> up in his terminal buffer now to see wtf went wrong.
> 
> Since 3.00 it installs a cdrecord binary that runs but doesn't actually
> talk to hardware. Fun.

Oh nevermind, I noticed it doesn't install cdrecord after all, and
prefix uses system-installed one.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

[Zac Medico]

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet?
>
> If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform
> users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in
> mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty
> easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour.

I'm already planning to send out a GLEP 42 news item for this before it
goes to stable. It will include a description of --quiet-build behavior
(including automatic display of build output when a build fails), how to
use EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS to customize the local default, and how the
default PORTAGE_ELOG_SYSTEM/PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES settings ensure that
elog messages are displayed regardless of the --quiet-build setting.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac