[gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The next Gentoo Council meeting will be on 13 May 2014, at 19:00 UTC.
>
> Please reply to this email with any proposed agenda items.

There have not been any proposed agenda items.  Here is next week's
agenda (if you have any additions, please chime in):

http://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/council/council_agenda_20140513.txt

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Please reply to this email with any proposed agenda items.

I recently filed these two bugs:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507130
dev-libs/openssl: disable tls-heartbeat by default

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507210
net-misc/opensshd: do not enable USE=hpn by default

Both bugs have seen dismissive responses from the base-system team,
which I find somewhat disappointing. I understand that they are quite
busy, but it seems to me that these bugs could at least get a serious
response, rather than a fairly blunt "no" (but it might just be me?).

I wonder if the council wants to discuss this, or if there is some
other venue I should explore first.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:21:33PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507210
> net-misc/opensshd: do not enable USE=hpn by default
> 
> Both bugs have seen dismissive responses from the base-system team,
> which I find somewhat disappointing. I understand that they are quite
> busy, but it seems to me that these bugs could at least get a serious
> response, rather than a fairly blunt "no" (but it might just be me?).
As the dev that did a number of the ports to a new version for HPN, and
sent that to upstream, I would really like upstream openssh to accept
the hpn patches. They provide a huge performance boost: i've used them
to copy multiple terabytes at >800mbit transatlantic.

As a member of base-system, I feel the performance benefit of the patch,
and that it has no downsides or extra dependencies is sufficent for it
to be enabled by default.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 10/05/14 05:56, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:21:33PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507210
>> net-misc/opensshd: do not enable USE=hpn by default
>>
>> Both bugs have seen dismissive responses from the base-system team,
>> which I find somewhat disappointing. I understand that they are quite
>> busy, but it seems to me that these bugs could at least get a serious
>> response, rather than a fairly blunt "no" (but it might just be me?).
> As the dev that did a number of the ports to a new version for HPN, and
> sent that to upstream, I would really like upstream openssh to accept
> the hpn patches. They provide a huge performance boost: i've used them
> to copy multiple terabytes at >800mbit transatlantic.
>
> As a member of base-system, I feel the performance benefit of the patch,
> and that it has no downsides or extra dependencies is sufficent for it
> to be enabled by default.
>

As a member of base-system too, I concur with everything you just said.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Joshua Kinard]

On 05/10/2014 02:03, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> 
> On 10/05/14 05:56, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:21:33PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507210
>>> net-misc/opensshd: do not enable USE=hpn by default
>>>
>>> Both bugs have seen dismissive responses from the base-system team,
>>> which I find somewhat disappointing. I understand that they are quite
>>> busy, but it seems to me that these bugs could at least get a serious
>>> response, rather than a fairly blunt "no" (but it might just be me?).
>> As the dev that did a number of the ports to a new version for HPN, and
>> sent that to upstream, I would really like upstream openssh to accept
>> the hpn patches. They provide a huge performance boost: i've used them
>> to copy multiple terabytes at >800mbit transatlantic.
>>
>> As a member of base-system, I feel the performance benefit of the patch,
>> and that it has no downsides or extra dependencies is sufficent for it
>> to be enabled by default.
>>
> 
> As a member of base-system too, I concur with everything you just said.

I e-mailed HPN upstream on 04/09 to ask if they ever submitted the HPN patch
to OpenSSH's bug.  Never heard back.  Nothing turns up when searching for
HPN there, either.  Can someone else try to poke them into submitting the
HPN patch?  At least then, we can track its upstream status.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Markos Chandras]

On 05/10/2014 07:03 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> 
> On 10/05/14 05:56, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:21:33PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507210
>>> net-misc/opensshd: do not enable USE=hpn by default
>>>
>>> Both bugs have seen dismissive responses from the base-system team,
>>> which I find somewhat disappointing. I understand that they are quite
>>> busy, but it seems to me that these bugs could at least get a serious
>>> response, rather than a fairly blunt "no" (but it might just be me?).
>> As the dev that did a number of the ports to a new version for HPN, and
>> sent that to upstream, I would really like upstream openssh to accept
>> the hpn patches. They provide a huge performance boost: i've used them
>> to copy multiple terabytes at >800mbit transatlantic.
>>
>> As a member of base-system, I feel the performance benefit of the patch,
>> and that it has no downsides or extra dependencies is sufficent for it
>> to be enabled by default.
>>
> 
> As a member of base-system too, I concur with everything you just said.
> 
> - Samuli
> 

I also agree but I would also like to mention that I do not think
discussing the 'default USE flags' is so important. Anyone who cares
about security or production use of openssh he/she should be able to
figure out the good default for him/her and disable those that he/she
consider dangerous. Why people are so nervous about the default use
flags? it's a simple one line in package.use to configure your package
they way you want to. In my opinion, the default use flags should be
left at maintainers' discretion

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I also agree but I would also like to mention that I do not think
> discussing the 'default USE flags' is so important. Anyone who cares
> about security or production use of openssh he/she should be able to
> figure out the good default for him/her and disable those that he/she
> consider dangerous. Why people are so nervous about the default use
> flags? it's a simple one line in package.use to configure your package
> they way you want to. In my opinion, the default use flags should be
> left at maintainers' discretion

Well, I'm all for security being a consideration, but it is still up
to maintainer's discretion.  The most minimal configuration is not
necessarily the most secure.

For all we know the next openssl vulnerability will only affect people
who don't have tls-heartbeat enabled.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

Rich Freeman:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> The next Gentoo Council meeting will be on 13 May 2014, at 19:00 UTC.
>>
>> Please reply to this email with any proposed agenda items.
> 
> There have not been any proposed agenda items.  Here is next week's
> agenda (if you have any additions, please chime in):
> 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/council/council_agenda_20140513.txt
> 
> Rich
> 

I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would be
added or renamed downstream (at least this will prevent new violations).

This was discussed a year ago or so on the ML [0] with agreement that we
need at least a policy to forbid it. A tracker [1] was opened and a
devmanual policy [2] introduced.

Recently, QA team has voted on their own pkg-config policy which seems
to even diverge from the devmanual policy. [3]

Further, QA team is not helpful when dealing with these policy
violations and seems to not care much, saying it's not even within their
scope. [4]

Reasons and actual breakages why this causes cross-distro problems can
be seen here:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694671
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=715796
https://github.com/gusnan/devilspie2/commit/8bbc2f64bc2115178d5e1de170c1c1882eaf2799

It seems some people even go further actually doing the same terrible
debian hackery... RENAMING libraries to make their idea of slotting work
[5].
This can break programs that dlopen these libraries [6].

This should also be banned, IMO and exceptions have to be discussed on
dev ML with the community, not just silently hacked up by the maintainer.

These things affect more than just gentoo (and definitely other
developers as well).


--
[0] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/81591
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445618
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445130
[3]
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Summaries#Hacked_pkgconfig_files
[4] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509392#c35
[5]
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-lang/lua/files/lua-5.1-make-r2.patch?hideattic=1&revision=1.1&view=markup&sortby=log
[6] https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/5190#issuecomment-41884058

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4337 bytes --]

On Fri, 09 May 2014 14:07:46 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would be
> added or renamed downstream (at least this will prevent new
> violations).

I ask them to consider to allow gentoo-*.pc files as an exception.

Totally having no pkg-config files is going to keep breakage around,
which is the reason as to why they are currently added.

Fixes to build systems aren't always that easy as could be claimed;
if they were, this wouldn't even be a problem in the first place.

> This was discussed a year ago or so on the ML [0] with agreement that
> we need at least a policy to forbid it.

There is no such agreement there to forbid it.

> A tracker [1] was opened and a devmanual policy [2] introduced.

Added by hasufell, without consensus; also, there is disagreement:

    ssuominen: "there should be no such policy, [...]"
    https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445130#c6

    ssuominen: "I support the idea of shipping pkg-config files [...]"
    https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=443786#c1

Most tracker bugs are not responded to; so, I don't even see how
banning would fix or prevent these bugs from existing.

> Recently, QA team has voted on their own pkg-config policy which seems
> to even diverge from the devmanual policy. [3]

It's somewhat similar, just with other wording; your wording contains
"unavoidable fix" which is exactly the case with some of these bugs
(eg. with upstreams like Lua and/or NVIDIA), we recommend upstreaming
and thus the maintainer can take similar exceptions as yours to that.

> Further, QA team is not helpful when dealing with these policy
> violations and seems to not care much, saying it's not even within
> their scope. [4]

It is not a policy violation; the only one who can act on the bug given
the situation is the maintainer, the only thing QA can say is to take
this to the gentoo-dev ML and/or in extension what you have done now.

In addition, we give some thoughts to consider; that's all we can do,
until there's more awareness and discussion from the community.

We look out for the best interest of *all* developers. (GLEP:48)

> Reasons and actual breakages why this causes cross-distro problems can
> be seen here:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694671
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=715796
> https://github.com/gusnan/devilspie2/commit/8bbc2f64bc2115178d5e1de170c1c1882eaf2799

We can work together with other distributions to use the same .pc
files; for a organized way, this can be done in a central repository.

This removes the need to endless wait on upstreams that won't accept
the .pc files; instead, it'll force them to accept it as multiple
distributions start to use a central repository for their .pc files.

> It seems some people even go further actually doing the same terrible
> debian hackery... RENAMING libraries to make their idea of slotting
> work [5].
> This can break programs that dlopen these libraries [6].

It will, until distributions work together to cooperate on .pc files.

> This should also be banned, IMO and exceptions have to be discussed on
> dev ML with the community, not just silently hacked up by the
> maintainer.

With what purpose? To verbally agree that we can't convince upstream?

> These things affect more than just gentoo (and definitely other
> developers as well).

And when something affects somebody, you should talk to them; in other
words, we need to talk to and work together with the other distributions
and share .pc files with them so we no longer have the current breakage
and/or extra time wasted to build system maintenance that breaks too.

But for a start; naming them gentoo-*.pc can at least make it clear to
developers that their program will only work on Gentoo, avoiding most
of the problems that would affect other distributions.

Consider to choose for consistency that scales and works in the future;
not for build system regressions, not for extra maintenance work. TIA

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

I'll give it to this list outright.

I have problems believing in QA competence when I read comments like these:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c14
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c17

You even blocked me out of the bug. I mean... wtf is happening here? I'm
not even sure the list can read those bug comments to understand what I
mean.

I used to believe it's lack of manpower/time or even laziness, but I am
not sure anymore.

Funnily... the meeting summary of march is lost where you were supposed
to vote on the tinderbox matter. I am not sure either if that is "by
accident" anymore. I pinged you guys often enough. No one seems to have
the logs anymore.

Anyway, I had less trouble getting responses from the old QA team. When
I ask you guys, I usually get one of these responses (or similar):
* nothing, unless I ping you after 2 weeks again
* "probably not in QAs scope"
* "post on dev ML first, we don't know what to think"
* "not sure if that's our business, appeal to council"

Not sure what's worth QA if they don't have strong opinions and try to
avoid to piss off people.

I used to ask QA for guidance beforehand on delicate matters before I
escalated elsewhere or chose a particular approach. That doesn't really
work anymore, instead people expect me to fire up the bikeshedding
dev-ML which is the worst place to get ideas and do constructive
brainstorming.


I expect infra to unblock bug 473 now. This is unacceptable.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

hasufell:
> I'll give it to this list outright.
> 
> I have problems believing in QA competence when I read comments like these:
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c14
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c17
> 


blocked or not, I just post them here, because there is nothing to hide:



==============

Comment 14 Chris Reffett
Depends on whether you consider build failures and stuff like that to be
QA's problem. Further depends on getting hardware--I for one don't
exactly have boxes lying around which have nothing better to do than
build packages all day. We can discuss this at the next meeting, but I
wouldn't suggest getting your hopes up.

==============

Comment 15 Julian Ospald (hasufell)
(In reply to Chris Reffett from comment #14)
I am not really sure if I understand that reasoning.

Testing is the very center of Quality Assurance (that's what I
learned... correct me if I am wrong). Gentoo as a distribution ships the
portage tree. If no one tests the tree on a global basis (arch testers
don't), then there is not much QA overall.

The quality of our tree inherently depends on the compileability of it's
packages. Further, there are a lot of use cases where a developer might
want/need to request a tinderbox run with a certain package unmasked, a
certain eclass changed etc.

In the end, it directly affects the user.

==============


Comment 16 Rick Farina (Zero_Chaos)
I have a tinderbox class system.  I build 4400 packages a day, give or
take.  Problem is, it's the same 4400 packages, and bug reports are
entirely non-automated.  If you would like to help setup something
better, here I am.

==============


Comment 17 Tom Wijsman
(In reply to Rick Farina (Zero_Chaos) from comment #16)
> I have a tinderbox class system.  I build 4400 packages a day, give or
take.
> Problem is, it's the same 4400 packages, and bug reports are entirely
> non-automated.  If you would like to help setup something better, here
I am.

We should fix bugs first before adding more of them; reviving Tinderbox
would be nice for when we run out of bugs, but that's definitely not the
case yet today.

Consider to mark this RESOLVED LATER again...

==============


Comment 18 Julian Ospald (hasufell)
(In reply to Tom Wijsman (TomWij) from comment #17)
> (In reply to Rick Farina (Zero_Chaos) from comment #16)
>> I have a tinderbox class system.  I build 4400 packages a day, give
or take.
>> Problem is, it's the same 4400 packages, and bug reports are entirely
>> non-automated.  If you would like to help setup something better,
here I am.
>
> We should fix bugs first before adding more of them; reviving Tinderbox
> would be nice for when we run out of bugs, but that's definitely not the
> case yet today.
>
> Consider to mark this RESOLVED LATER again...

lolwat?

==============


Comment 19 Alexander Berntsen (bernalex)
(In reply to Tom Wijsman (TomWij) from comment #17)
> We should fix bugs first before adding more of them; reviving Tinderbox
> would be nice for when we run out of bugs, but that's definitely not the
> case yet today.

Should we replace enter_bug.cgi with a website saying "sorry, we have
enough bugs for now" as well?

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> hasufell:
>> I'll give it to this list outright.
>>
>> I have problems believing in QA competence when I read comments like these:
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c14
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c17
>>
>
>
> blocked or not, I just post them here, because there is nothing to hide:

I have no idea what the actual bug is from the excerpt, beyond it
somehow involving a tinderbox.

Is this relevant to the question of whether we should be allowing
Gentoo-created pkg-config files, or is this another topic?  If it is
another topic, what is the actual topic you want to discuss, and I
suggest you start another tread?

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 09/05/14 21:13, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> hasufell:
>>> I'll give it to this list outright.
>>>
>>> I have problems believing in QA competence when I read comments like these:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c14
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c17
>>>
>>
>> blocked or not, I just post them here, because there is nothing to hide:
> I have no idea what the actual bug is from the excerpt, beyond it
> somehow involving a tinderbox.
>
> Is this relevant to the question of whether we should be allowing
> Gentoo-created pkg-config files, or is this another topic?  If it is
> another topic, what is the actual topic you want to discuss, and I
> suggest you start another tread?
>
>

(Sorry, I stole your message, not exactly a reply to it...)

Of course they should be allowed, it's the only sane way to fix some of
the build problems we
are seeing today
They are no different from patches, patches get added to Portage and the
maintainer files
an upstream bug (an effort to upstreamize it)
Should we also ban patches from Portage then, up until they are
committed to upstream? That's totally unrealistic.
No sane upstream will reject them, and if they do, we will overturn
their rejection by continuing shipping them downstream,
just like we keep on patching required patches even if upstream rejects
them.

I'm really not happy about some decisions done by QA lately. Take the
USE="gtk2 gtk3" crap for example, how is disallowing
USE="gtk" (= means maintainer has carefully selected which toolkit works
best for the package) improving anything? It's
counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of each
package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk"
possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1031 bytes --]

On Fri, 09 May 2014 21:19:20 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Of course they [sic. pkgconfig files] should be allowed, [...]

+1

> I'm really not happy about some decisions done by QA lately. Take the
> USE="gtk2 gtk3" crap for example, how is disallowing
> USE="gtk" (= means maintainer has carefully selected which toolkit
> works best for the package) improving anything?

No final decision is taken here so far, we're waiting for the GNOME team
to respond on our mail; until then, I think that the status quo holds.

> It's counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of
> each package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk"
> possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use.

So, rehashing it in a thread to which it is unrelated yields no results.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 09/05/14 21:37, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> It's counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of
>> each package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk"
>> possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use.
> So, rehashing it in a thread to which it is unrelated yields no results.
>

I'm not so sure, it seems QA is picking policies as per what some loud
people on the ML say as opposed to giving overwhelming technical arguments
their proper weight

I hope I'm wrong

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 973 bytes --]

On Fri, 09 May 2014 21:45:05 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> On 09/05/14 21:37, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >> It's counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of
> >> each package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk"
> >> possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use.
> > So, rehashing it in a thread to which it is unrelated yields no
> > results.
> >
> 
> I'm not so sure, it seems QA is picking policies as per what some loud
> people on the ML say as opposed to giving overwhelming technical
> arguments their proper weight
> 
> I hope I'm wrong

You can inspect the meeting logs and/or summaries, it looks technical
to me; if we left some{one,thing} out, you're welcome to point that out.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

Tom Wijsman:
> You can inspect the meeting logs

Not really.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:37:11 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Tom Wijsman:
> > You can inspect the meeting logs
> 
> Not really.

You can, all you have to do is ask; if nobody asks, we can wait for
those that were assigned to the task, whom are currently absent / busy.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

Tom Wijsman:
> On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:37:11 +0000
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Tom Wijsman:
>>> You can inspect the meeting logs
>>
>> Not really.
> 
> You can, all you have to do is ask; if nobody asks, we can wait for
> those that were assigned to the task, whom are currently absent / busy.
> 

You are joking.

Please check the amount of times I have asked on the project ML here.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 925 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 20:41:03 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Please check the amount of times I have asked on the project ML here.

You've asked for summaries, which are still pending; as for the logs,
they are on the meeting summaries page now, given the recent request.

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Summaries

I'm not joking, they just haven't found the time to summarize it; when
they do, we'll let you know. If it is not done before the next meeting,
I'll ask the QA team for a deadline and/or reassignment; or perhaps
doing it myself, given that it have been two months already.

If you need something in specific summarized from them, please ask.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

Samuli Suominen:
> 
> On 09/05/14 21:37, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> It's counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of
>>> each package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk"
>>> possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use.
>> So, rehashing it in a thread to which it is unrelated yields no results.
>>
> 
> I'm not so sure, it seems QA is picking policies as per what some loud
> people on the ML say as opposed to giving overwhelming technical arguments
> their proper weight
> 

Well, if QA team members confuses "bugs" with "bug reports" and say they
don't want to do actual work (aka tinderbox), because it would cause
more "bugs", then I have serious doubts about their technical
understanding of certain issues.

Sure, there is always more than one opinion and I'm not posting here
because someone decided against my own opinion, but because there is no
clear decision whatsoever.

This isn't the first time... you probably know, the gtk3 vs gtk2 vs gtk
flag issue is still UNRESOLVED. I pushed for a clear decision often
enough (must be more than a year now) and here we are, still without any.
The same applies for tinderbox, applies for pkg-config discussion,
applies for...

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This isn't the first time... you probably know, the gtk3 vs gtk2 vs gtk
> flag issue is still UNRESOLVED. I pushed for a clear decision often
> enough (must be more than a year now) and here we are, still without any.
> The same applies for tinderbox, applies for pkg-config discussion,
> applies for...

You can always put some of these on the council agenda (as has already
been done with pkg-config).  Granted, I'm not sure what you expect
anybody to do about the tinderbox, as the only thing that requires is
somebody to step up and just do the work.

I agree with your point that a tinderbox would be useful - adding more
bug reports to bugzilla is a good thing, and some will get ignored,
but others will get fixed which otherwise wouldn't be noticed.
However, I don't really see QA as the thing standing in the way of a
tinderbox.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of QA taking on the role of the body that
makes controversial decisions.  I think they're the right place to
start with questions like these, but when there is an issue that isn't
clear-cut I think that is what the council is for.  I'm not saying
that QA shouldn't ever be able to make policy - only that it should
use discretion when doing so, and that seems to be what is happening
here.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

Rich Freeman:
> 
> Honestly, I'm not a big fan of QA taking on the role of the body that
> makes controversial decisions.

Exactly, they should rather be the guys who jump in discussions that
affect tree consistency etc. and help with general inquiries. Instead,
they point me to dev-ML and... council.

> I think they're the right place to
> start with questions like these, but when there is an issue that isn't
> clear-cut I think that is what the council is for.  I'm not saying
> that QA shouldn't ever be able to make policy - only that it should
> use discretion when doing so, and that seems to be what is happening
> here.
> 

As I said... I have done a lot of inquiries to QA, both regarding the
new and the old team. It hasn't improved, you know?

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 594 bytes --]

>>>>> hasufell wrote:

> [...] QA team is not helpful [...] and seems to not care much [...]
> [...] I have problems believing in QA competence [...]
> [...] I have serious doubts about their technical understanding [...]
> [...] lolwat? [...]
> [...] I can't even take their comments seriously. [...]
> [...] the new and the old team. It hasn't improved [...]

All posted to this list in the last two days. Do you really wonder why
you don't get any answers from QA team members any more?

(And yes, the above quotes are out of their context. That doesn't
change the picture, though.)

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Wulf C. Krueger]

Hello Ulrich,

On Sa 10 Mai 2014 16:22:33 CEST, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> hasufell wrote:
>> [...] QA team is [...]
> All posted to this list in the last two days. Do you really wonder why
> you don't get any answers from QA team members any more?

It's called "professionalism" - you either pick up a responsibility and 
deal with even the less... pleasant... people or you don't pick it up 
in the first place.

In an "office", selectively ignoring those one doesn't like is 
completely inacceptable. And, yes, this is true for any kind of hobby 
as well. Otherwise, it's better called "amateurism".

--
Best regards, Wulf

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Markos Chandras]

On 05/10/2014 03:30 PM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> Hello Ulrich,
> 
> On Sa 10 Mai 2014 16:22:33 CEST, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>> hasufell wrote:
>>> [...] QA team is [...]
>> All posted to this list in the last two days. Do you really wonder why
>> you don't get any answers from QA team members any more?
> 
> It's called "professionalism" - you either pick up a responsibility and 
> deal with even the less... pleasant... people or you don't pick it up 
> in the first place.
> 
> In an "office", selectively ignoring those one doesn't like is 
> completely inacceptable. And, yes, this is true for any kind of hobby 
> as well. Otherwise, it's better called "amateurism".
> 
> --
> Best regards, Wulf
> 
> 

You can't really compare a volunteer project with a paid job or an office.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1499 bytes --]

On 2014.05.10 15:51, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 05/10/2014 03:30 PM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > Hello Ulrich,
> > 
> > On Sa 10 Mai 2014 16:22:33 CEST, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>>>> hasufell wrote:
> >>> [...] QA team is [...]
> >> All posted to this list in the last two days. Do you really wonder
> why
> >> you don't get any answers from QA team members any more?
> > 
> > It's called "professionalism" - you either pick up a responsibility
> and 
> > deal with even the less... pleasant... people or you don't pick it
> up 
> > in the first place.
> > 
> > In an "office", selectively ignoring those one doesn't like is 
> > completely inacceptable. And, yes, this is true for any kind of
> hobby 
> > as well. Otherwise, it's better called "amateurism".
> > 
> > --
> > Best regards, Wulf
> > 
> > 
> 
> You can't really compare a volunteer project with a paid job or an
> office.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras
> 
> 
> 

Markos,

How far do you think that approach would get the officers and trustees 
of the Gentoo Foundation Inc. with the American IRS?

There is no need to respond anyone.  Everyone keep it in mind in your 
dealings with one anther. Just because there are no contracts of 
employment nor salaries should not mean that our standards of 
interaction with one another should not be of a "professional" 
standard. 

-- 
Regards,

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Professional behaviour (was: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014)

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 620 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2014, Wulf C Krueger wrote:

> It's called "professionalism" - you either pick up a responsibility
> and deal with even the less... pleasant... people or you don't pick
> it up in the first place.

> In an "office", selectively ignoring those one doesn't like is
> completely inacceptable. And, yes, this is true for any kind of
> hobby as well. Otherwise, it's better called "amateurism".

Hello Philantrop,
By these criteria, Linux would be an unprofessional project:
"Ignoring good taste and consideration is most likely to result in you
being ignored." [1]

Ulrich

[1] http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Professional behaviour (was: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> By these criteria, Linux would be an unprofessional project:
> "Ignoring good taste and consideration is most likely to result in you
> being ignored." [1]

You don't have to be a linux subsystem maintainer to figure out that
lkml is hardly a professional environment.  :)

I'd like to think that the Gentoo lists should be someplace you
wouldn't be embarrassed to have your employer read, but that doesn't
mean that we need to be stuffy...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 16:30:35 +0200
"Wulf C. Krueger" <wk@mailstation.de> wrote:

> Hello Ulrich,
> 
> On Sa 10 Mai 2014 16:22:33 CEST, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>>> hasufell wrote:
> >> [...] QA team is [...]
> > All posted to this list in the last two days. Do you really wonder
> > why you don't get any answers from QA team members any more?
> 
> It's called "professionalism" - you either pick up a responsibility
> and deal with even the less... pleasant... people or you don't pick
> it up in the first place.

Well; most of these are outside of our responsibility, ...

> In an "office", selectively ignoring those one doesn't like is 
> completely inacceptable. And, yes, this is true for any kind of hobby 
> as well. Otherwise, it's better called "amateurism".

    Mr., the "office" is in another building; this is a "basement", ...

In other words; if you address someone whom is not responsible, you'll
only be deferred and in e ignored, ...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

Ulrich Mueller:
>>>>>> hasufell wrote:
> 
>> [...] QA team is not helpful [...] and seems to not care much [...]
>> [...] I have problems believing in QA competence [...]
>> [...] I have serious doubts about their technical understanding [...]
>> [...] lolwat? [...]
>> [...] I can't even take their comments seriously. [...]
>> [...] the new and the old team. It hasn't improved [...]
> 
> All posted to this list in the last two days. Do you really wonder why
> you don't get any answers from QA team members any more?
> 

That doesn't make sense. You are saying you didn't reply, because you
knew I would eventually post this on the project ML?

Some people stressed it way too much, so I came up with this. I
repeatedly contacted people in private as well, before I decided to
escalate.

So, no... I'm not hiding somewhere and waiting for my chance to piss
people off.
I tried for months to get help from QA. Most of the time, it didn't work
out very well (enough examples given already, would be interesting if
someone actually replies to them). This is not on me.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

hasufell:
> Ulrich Mueller:
>>>>>>> hasufell wrote:
>>
>>> [...] QA team is not helpful [...] and seems to not care much [...]
>>> [...] I have problems believing in QA competence [...]
>>> [...] I have serious doubts about their technical understanding [...]
>>> [...] lolwat? [...]
>>> [...] I can't even take their comments seriously. [...]
>>> [...] the new and the old team. It hasn't improved [...]
>>
>> All posted to this list in the last two days. Do you really wonder why
>> you don't get any answers from QA team members any more?
>>
> 
> That doesn't make sense. You are saying you didn't reply, because you
> knew I would eventually post this on the project ML?
> 
> Some people stressed it way too much, so I came up with this. I
> repeatedly contacted people in private as well, before I decided to
> escalate.
> 
> So, no... I'm not hiding somewhere and waiting for my chance to piss
> people off.
> I tried for months to get help from QA. Most of the time, it didn't work
> out very well (enough examples given already, would be interesting if
> someone actually replies to them). This is not on me.
> 

Besides, I am not a fan of escalating on ML-level. I usually try this on
a) private mail or b) mail-alias level.

And I did so several times. It isn't really fun for me, because it
causes negativity and makes it actually harder to get constructive results.

But, here we are.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1216 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:43:04 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Exactly, they should rather be the guys who jump in discussions that
> affect tree consistency etc. and help with general inquiries. Instead,
> they point me to dev-ML and... council.

Do you mean when you ask 'What is the opinion of the QA team on this?'
but then later just ignore us and take it to the Gentoo Council? (GTK+)

Or a 'Does QA feel this should be treated with more "force"? Seems no
one is really interested in fixing any of these bugs.' in an attempt
to change the 'more or less' community consensus? (Hacked .pc files)

Or the 'giant snowflake' where addressing those related would suffice?

Can you please reconsider to talk to them / gentoo-dev ML before us?

I'm confused as to why you expect a different response from us...

> As I said... I have done a lot of inquiries to QA, both regarding the
> new and the old team. It hasn't improved, you know?

It has become worse, in a good way.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3724 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:43:04 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Exactly, they should rather be the guys who jump in discussions that
> affect tree consistency etc. and help with general inquiries.

If only the community would expect and know us to be those guys.

Tried to help with a general inquiry today where QA team was CC-ed ...

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509962#c3

... where I ...

 1) hold on to policy by quoting it, which QA is asked to do;
 2) give Samuli the benefit of doubt, as to let him talk first;
 3) contact multiple persons from the arch teams to be fully aware,
    answers ranging from "Samuli can do that" [a personal exception?]
    to "That's rude" [the opposite of that exception?]; so, confusing;
 4) explicitly choose not to bitch at all or escalate to ComRel;
 5) ...

... but in response I get ...

 1) "try actually doing something for qa@ and stop messing with other
 peoples work";
 2) "you have to be kidding.";
 3) "stop wasting everyones time.";

... continuing on #gentoo-qa ...

 4) "i'm getting really tired of the newer developers from
 qa@ wasting everyones time by bitching about proper work";
 5) "you just succesfully demotivated me for the rest of the day";
 6) "it's no longer fun to work if everything you do (albeit what you
 do broke absolutely nothing, but improved things) get complained at";
 7) "qa this and that";
 8) "/me is starting to understand hasufell better by the day";
 9) "not be a policy nazi";
 10) "i didn't ignore anything, you did";
 11) "i don't count that as valid apology";
 12) "he has serious problems admitting his own mistakes";
 13) "contuining with the mistake, as opposed to admitting and
 apologizing his own fault";
 14) "TomWij is improving qa, didn't you notice? ;)".

Do people really expect QA to be communicative, be motivated and work?

It's not just a single developer here, it's also worth noting that I
don't have a problem with ssuominen at all; especially not, as that
comment on the bug was written to help him rather than to work against.

But if multiple developers communicate in this way, which is what is
happening these days; then really, QA can't be expected to communicate
with them, be motivated to help with their work and work with them.

This "problem" is too big for QA, ComRel or Council to fix; from what
is seen; if people want to fix it, it has to come from the community.

Don't say what QA shouldn't do, but say what to do; don't communicate
against us, but communicate with us; don't reject QA when they do what
you ask, but understand it; you get what you set up and expect.

The bug linked to above is relying on an announcement that has been
made on gentoo-core in 2007, which is invisible to everyone that joined
in 2008 and later. Not every recruiter brings it up either, thus it's
stuck in a collective memory for those whom remember that; this is why
policy, or "knowledge codification", is important. At least if you don't
want to accuse people of not following things they're not aware about.

A single line of docu / policy can spare out a lot of talk and time...

> Instead, they point me to dev-ML and... council.

Our way out of the thick-skinned legendary-patience approach, as some
fans like to label it; until one day, yet another one bites the dust
because duty calls whilst someone is "wrong" on the internet.

Time to go play a FPS game until I'm motivated to fix more QA bugs...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 16:14:20 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 4) explicitly choose not to bitch at all or escalate to ComRel;

What does that mean? Does it ever happen to you that you think "choosing
to bitch" is the right solution? And what is "escalating to ComRel"? It
sounds painfully like any ComRel (re)solution would result in people
getting booted from the project or severely restricted in volunteering
their work, if not simply unwilling to do so under technically imposed
restrictions (from QA or the Council).

> ... but in response I get ...

[lots of negative feedback]

>  14) "TomWij is improving qa, didn't you notice? ;)".
> 
> Do people really expect QA to be communicative, be motivated and work?

Of course we do, but are you sure you're tackling this problem the
right way? I haven't looked into this, but from your quotations and
from random comments on IRC I get the sure feeling you are perhaps
pushing people too hard, or at the least rubbing them the wrong way.
There is no hierarchy that puts QA above developers - you work with
volunteers and they are all trying their best to get things fixed, even
when this isn't immediately obvious to you or when the best solution
doesn't immediately present itself. And when you decide to force issues
through policies, you find that you don't actually have the resources
to do that, unless you are prepared to drive out the volunteers you
expected to start "fixing" things. Are matters of "policy" the carrot
or the stick?


Regards,
     jer

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2616 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 18:51:46 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 May 2014 16:14:20 +0200
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > 4) explicitly choose not to bitch at all or escalate to ComRel;
> 
> What does that mean?

See point (4) in the redacted feedback below.

> Does it ever happen to you that you think "choosing to bitch" is the
> right solution?

See point (4) in your specific quote above.

> And what is "escalating to ComRel"? It sounds painfully like any
> ComRel (re)solution would result in people getting booted from the
> project or severely restricted in volunteering their work, if not
> simply unwilling to do so under technically imposed restrictions
> (from QA or the Council).

Exactly, and such escalations happen too often; to both ComRel and QA,
to some extent this even happens to the Gentoo Council too.

> > ... but in response I get ...
> 
> [lots of negative feedback]
> 
> >  14) "TomWij is improving qa, didn't you notice? ;)".
> > 
> > Do people really expect QA to be communicative, be motivated and
> > work?
> 
> Of course we do, but are you sure you're tackling this problem the
> right way? I haven't looked into this, but from your quotations and
> from random comments on IRC I get the sure feeling you are perhaps
> pushing people too hard, or at the least rubbing them the wrong way.

Can you also consider that people are pushing QA too hard, or rubbing
the QA team the wrong way? Action, reaction; there are two sides to it.

> There is no hierarchy that puts QA above developers - you work with
> volunteers and they are all trying their best to get things fixed,

Did someone state there to be such hierarchy?

> even when this isn't immediately obvious to you or when the best
> solution doesn't immediately present itself.

What does that mean? What is non obvious? Why a solution?

> And when you decide to force issues through policies, you find that
> you don't actually have the resources to do that,

What is this even about? Has something been forced? Which resources?

> unless you are prepared to drive out the volunteers you expected to
> start "fixing" things. Are matters of "policy" the carrot or the
> stick?

Given that you haven't looked into the case, I'm not sure why you can
claim such statements; in matters like these, the "policy" is the clue.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 19:18:27 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Can you also consider that people are pushing QA too hard, or rubbing
> the QA team the wrong way? Action, reaction; there are two sides to
> it.

Sure. Everyone suffers.

But as you quoted others as saying they are getting "really tired",
"succesfully demotivated", and are having sarcastic little giggles about
the effect you (in your QA role or otherwise) apparently have on them,
as an _apparent_ response to your "hold[ing] on to policy by quoting it,
which QA is asked to do", "contact[ing] multiple persons from the arch
teams", and notably "...", you have an obvious problem working in that
setting.

Given that this was the material you gave me to work with, that was my
entirely uninvolved viewpoint of the matter at hand. And to me it looks
remarkably like you were throwing the book at someone while assuming a
"[QA]" role. It doesn't look like that's working out too well.


Regards,
     jer

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1314 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 19:52:07 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 May 2014 19:18:27 +0200
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Can you also consider that people are pushing QA too hard, or
> > rubbing the QA team the wrong way? Action, reaction; there are two
> > sides to it.
> 
> Sure. Everyone suffers.

+1

> But as you [..] you have an obvious problem working in that setting.

Yes, hence the reply; such that we can solve this with the community.

> And to me it looks remarkably like you were throwing the book at
> someone while assuming a "[QA]" role. It doesn't look like that's
> working out too well.

Well, no, in this case the "documented in gentoo-core in 2007" book is
thrown at QA; doesn't work too well, when we can't even read that book.

Remarkable that new developers are expected to have magically read it;
the lack of knowledge codification is a problem, hence the policy needs
an update instead of another tired "you must not have been here in 20XX"
remark by a random developer with no quote or reference that helps out.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 20:15:39 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Well, no, in this case the "documented in gentoo-core in 2007" book is
> thrown at QA; doesn't work too well, when we can't even read that
> book.

Well, no. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509962#c3

"[QA]

..."


Regards,
     jer

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1081 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 02:14:52 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 May 2014 20:15:39 +0200
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 May 2014 19:52:07 +0200
> > Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > And to me it looks remarkably like you were throwing the book at
> > > someone while assuming a "[QA]" role. It doesn't look like that's
> > > working out too well.
> >
> > Well, no, in this case the "documented in gentoo-core in 2007" book
> > is thrown at QA; doesn't work too well, when we can't even read that
> > book.
> 
> Well, no. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509962#c3

That's working out well; it is according to "The QA team is also tasked
with the authority to ensure tree policies are respected." as stated in
GLEP 48. If that doesn't work for you, please suggest a fix to GLEP 48.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 02:28:53 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 May 2014 02:14:52 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 11 May 2014 20:15:39 +0200
> > Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 11 May 2014 19:52:07 +0200
> > > Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

You fabricated a quotation here. :-\


     jer

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 02:42:13 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> You fabricated a quotation here. :-\

Yes, because you've left one out that I would consider still relevant;
so, I've added it back as it would have been if it were still there.

Remarkable that you have noticed that... :-)

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 02:58:54 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Yes, because you've left one out that I would consider still relevant;
> so, I've added it back as it would have been if it were still there.

You were quoting me and inserted text that I hadn't put there and made
it look like I or my mail client had put it there. What is wrong with
you?

> Remarkable that you have noticed that... :-)

I don't know what to say now.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I don't know what to say now.

Not picking on you in particular, I think this thread jumped the shark
and is now stomping on it.  It makes my eyes bleed.

I can't even keep track of where the various subthreads started.  I
think it had something to do with pkg-config.  :)

Pro tip for mailing lists - you don't have to reply to EVERY SINGLE
MESSAGE in a thread.  And this is coming from somebody who is
admittedly fairly active/verbose on lists.  Council members shouldn't
be printing out the threads and weighing the arguments on a scale to
determine their votes.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 10:22:56 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> wrote:

> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what to say now.
> 
> Not picking on you in particular, I think this thread jumped the shark
> and is now stomping on it.  It makes my eyes bleed.

How is it that on mailing lists, discussions always take too long?
Maybe the Council should decide on a proper cutoff depth or length.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2014 10:22:56 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't know what to say now.
>>
>> Not picking on you in particular, I think this thread jumped the shark
>> and is now stomping on it.  It makes my eyes bleed.
>
> How is it that on mailing lists, discussions always take too long?
> Maybe the Council should decide on a proper cutoff depth or length.

Well, there is no such thing as a discussion which is too long.
However, there does come a point where everybody is just treading over
the same points over and over.

People can keep posting if they want to, but I doubt it will affect
the outcome of a vote.  It just wastes everybody's time.

Speaking for myself, I try to look at a debate, maybe poke and prod at
it a little to see if anything lurks under a stone, and then take it
all in and try to make the best call.  I do tend to look at how
widely-supported an argument is, though the strength of the argument
itself matters more.  How many times the argument gets made really
doesn't concern me all that much.  So, regurgitating your own argument
basically adds nothing, but a simple ++ to somebody else's adds a
little, and saying something that nobody has yet to point out adds
most of all.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 11:41:17 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> wrote:

> > How is it that on mailing lists, discussions always take too long?
> > Maybe the Council should decide on a proper cutoff depth or length.
> 
> Well, there is no such thing as a discussion which is too long.

I can't believe you actually responded to that obvious troll.


      jer

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:04:23 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 May 2014 02:58:54 +0200
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, because you've left one out that I would consider still
> > relevant; so, I've added it back as it would have been if it were
> > still there.
> 
> You were quoting me and inserted text that I hadn't put there [...]

Yes, I did; there's nothing wrong with that, it's common practice to
quote what we were talking about and there's no limit to that depth.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 19:33:02 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

[You misquoted me.]

> Yes, I did; there's nothing wrong with that, it's common practice to
> quote what we were talking about and there's no limit to that depth.

And yet you wonder why you have problems communicating.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1132 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 19:54:37 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 May 2014 19:33:02 +0200
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> [You misquoted me.]

You repeat yourself.

> And yet you wonder why you have problems communicating.

And yet you expect "communication" when you go off-topic; you are
currently giving responses about the writers, not their writings.

This mailing list is used to communicate about the Gentoo Project.

So, can you please get back to the central point quoted below?

On Mon, 12 May 2014 02:28:53 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij <at> gentoo.org> wrote:

> That's working out well; it is according to "The QA team is also
> tasked with the authority to ensure tree policies are respected." as
> stated in GLEP 48. If that doesn't work for you, please suggest a fix
> to GLEP 48.

Reference: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3637

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

On Mon, 12 May 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:

> On Mon, 12 May 2014 19:54:37 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 May 2014 19:33:02 +0200
>> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> [You misquoted me.]
>
> You repeat yourself.

Misquoting someone is one of the worst "flaws" that one can do on a 
discussion. This is the basis to "putting words in somone's mouth".
If you felt that the other party add left something important out, there 
are ways to present that and to make it clear to anyone reading it. [] 
seems to be a usual way to add missing words. When adding a few sentences,
one should add a note about that.

>> And yet you wonder why you have problems communicating.
>
> And yet you expect "communication" when you go off-topic; you are
> currently giving responses about the writers, not their writings.
>
> This mailing list is used to communicate about the Gentoo Project.
>
> So, can you please get back to the central point quoted below?

I believe at this point most people consider this discussion to have 
reached the "ad nauseam" stage, so can all of you please catch a breath 
and take a break before sending more emails about the same?

Regards,

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
Gentoo Developer

[OT] Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1910 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 19:13:26 +0000 (UTC)
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:

> This is the basis to "putting words in somone's mouth".

This is a language barrier.

That's not my intention, I just want to provide context to the reader;
the words have not been changed, I don't see how else I would have
brought that back in the mail. Feel free to send me an example for
that, such that I can consider to do it properly in the future; I don't
see the problem in bringing back a quote depth, how else can I quote it?

Consider the opposite, if I were to not quote that sentence from you;
would a reader still know that I talk about that sentence in particular?

Quotes can't capture too much, they also can't capture too little; they
need to capture just enough, as that makes it easiest to follow along.

Can we document it in the ML etiquette, to improve future communication?

In this case I've quoted one depth because that's the most convenient
to read; while I could've quoted two (+ Tom) or three (+ Tom + Jer)
depths, in the other thread in question we were talking about something
that was already four depths which I considered as accidentally removed.

If it wasn't an accident; then, it indeed is ad nauseam. But that's
hard to tell if you can't read the other person's mind; it would be
easier to have a conversation in person, as it is easier to tell.

Given that this is no longer on-topic, besides this clarification, I'll
make no further replies here. Rereading your mail; if I understood it
correctly, I'll do my best to add a [Extra quote depth quoted] note
near the quote in the future. It is my mistake. Thank you very much.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 11/05/14 19:51, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>>  14) "TomWij is improving qa, didn't you notice? ;)".
>>
>> Do people really expect QA to be communicative, be motivated and work?
> Of course we do, but are you sure you're tackling this problem the
> right way? I haven't looked into this, but from your quotations and
> from random comments on IRC I get the sure feeling you are perhaps
> pushing people too hard, or at the least rubbing them the wrong way.
> There is no hierarchy that puts QA above developers - you work with
> volunteers and they are all trying their best to get things fixed, even
> when this isn't immediately obvious to you or when the best solution
> doesn't immediately present itself. And when you decide to force issues
> through policies, you find that you don't actually have the resources
> to do that, unless you are prepared to drive out the volunteers you
> expected to start "fixing" things. Are matters of "policy" the carrot
> or the stick?
>
>

exactly what i'm thinking too.  thanks, well put! ;)

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1744 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 20:34:46 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> On 11/05/14 19:51, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> >>  14) "TomWij is improving qa, didn't you notice? ;)".
> >>
> >> Do people really expect QA to be communicative, be motivated and
> >> work?
> > Of course we do, but are you sure you're tackling this problem the
> > right way? I haven't looked into this, but from your quotations and
> > from random comments on IRC I get the sure feeling you are perhaps
> > pushing people too hard, or at the least rubbing them the wrong way.
> > There is no hierarchy that puts QA above developers - you work with
> > volunteers and they are all trying their best to get things fixed,
> > even when this isn't immediately obvious to you or when the best
> > solution doesn't immediately present itself. And when you decide to
> > force issues through policies, you find that you don't actually
> > have the resources to do that, unless you are prepared to drive out
> > the volunteers you expected to start "fixing" things. Are matters
> > of "policy" the carrot or the stick?
> 
> exactly what i'm thinking too.  thanks, well put! ;)

It means that you haven't looked; you can't held such expectations if
you talk to the QA team with a fictional prejudgment, it might be well
put but that doesn't make it reflect the truth. It are thoughts; that
is, until you want to share it with QA what it is that you think about
as to make it into our collective knowledge. What is it that you notice?

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 11/05/14 20:54, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2014 20:34:46 +0300
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/05/14 19:51, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>>>>  14) "TomWij is improving qa, didn't you notice? ;)".
>>>>
>>>> Do people really expect QA to be communicative, be motivated and
>>>> work?
>>> Of course we do, but are you sure you're tackling this problem the
>>> right way? I haven't looked into this, but from your quotations and
>>> from random comments on IRC I get the sure feeling you are perhaps
>>> pushing people too hard, or at the least rubbing them the wrong way.
>>> There is no hierarchy that puts QA above developers - you work with
>>> volunteers and they are all trying their best to get things fixed,
>>> even when this isn't immediately obvious to you or when the best
>>> solution doesn't immediately present itself. And when you decide to
>>> force issues through policies, you find that you don't actually
>>> have the resources to do that, unless you are prepared to drive out
>>> the volunteers you expected to start "fixing" things. Are matters
>>> of "policy" the carrot or the stick?
>> exactly what i'm thinking too.  thanks, well put! ;)
> It means that you haven't looked; you can't held such expectations if
> you talk to the QA team with a fictional prejudgment, it might be well
> put but that doesn't make it reflect the truth. It are thoughts; that
> is, until you want to share it with QA what it is that you think about
> as to make it into our collective knowledge. What is it that you notice?
>

It should have been...

"OK, nothing is broken here, nothing for qa@ to do, looks like ssuominen
did everything for us."

Instead if you insisted on mangling the issue and shoving the policies
up in the face, and when
you were pointed out the major arches leads have given an exception for
stabilizing packages,
you didn't apology for the waste of time, instead, you continued with
mangling the issue futher,
accomplishing nothing but wasting everyones valuable time.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2114 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:06:13 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> It should have been...
> 
> "OK, nothing is broken here, nothing for qa@ to do, looks like
> ssuominen did everything for us."

That's exactly what I did; having him talk to you first, I did not
state anything to be broken or that the QA team must do something.

As to whether what you did is alright to the maintainer, that depends
on your and the arch team's response; given you override both of them on
a package that you don't maintain, I can't just make a bold claim that
"did everything for us" to be OK. It really depends on the motives...

> Instead if you insisted on mangling the issue and shoving the policies
> up in the face,

No, I quoted the documentation for the case at hand.

> and when you were pointed out the major arches leads have given an
> exception for stabilizing packages, you didn't apology for the waste
> of time, instead, you continued with mangling the issue futher,
> accomplishing nothing but wasting everyones valuable time.

That exception does not apply to this case, I also get a whole backlog
on IRC in return for my Comment #3; therefore, I continue to further
clarify what is going on, because you were upset regarding kingtaco's rule.

That rule is known to me as it has been told to me by hwoarang during
my recruitment; you directly assumed me to not know that rule, as well
as appear to use it in a context that the rule isn't applicable.

I'm expecting apologies from you too, given the statements that I've
quoted in the sub thread, it's a waste of valuable time to everyone
involved, both you and me; so, I do apologize for trying to help out.

You know me well enough to know that I'm not messing with your work,
at least not intentionally; if you do see it, feel free to /query me.

Please consider to apologize to me in return...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 11/05/14 21:33, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:06:13 +0300
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> It should have been...
>>
>> "OK, nothing is broken here, nothing for qa@ to do, looks like
>> ssuominen did everything for us."
> That's exactly what I did; having him talk to you first, I did not
> state anything to be broken or that the QA team must do something.
>
> As to whether what you did is alright to the maintainer, that depends
> on your and the arch team's response; given you override both of them on
> a package that you don't maintain, I can't just make a bold claim that
> "did everything for us" to be OK. It really depends on the motives...

stable was broken, and now it isn't, everything was done properly,
what more motive you need?

>
>> Instead if you insisted on mangling the issue and shoving the policies
>> up in the face,
> No, I quoted the documentation for the case at hand.
>
>> and when you were pointed out the major arches leads have given an
>> exception for stabilizing packages, you didn't apology for the waste
>> of time, instead, you continued with mangling the issue futher,
>> accomplishing nothing but wasting everyones valuable time.
> That exception does not apply to this case, I also get a whole backlog
> on IRC in return for my Comment #3; therefore, I continue to further
> clarify what is going on, because you were upset regarding kingtaco's rule.
>
> That rule is known to me as it has been told to me by hwoarang during
> my recruitment; you directly assumed me to not know that rule, as well
> as appear to use it in a context that the rule isn't applicable.

Then I can't possibly understand your reasoning to intervene on something
that doesn't concern you, or the QA team, in the first place, at all
Sort of makes this even worse

>
> I'm expecting apologies from you too, given the statements that I've
> quoted in the sub thread, it's a waste of valuable time to everyone
> involved, both you and me; so, I do apologize for trying to help out.

Help out?

Everything technical (and technical is the only thing that matters to
QA) had already
been done.
The time waste is still on-going, with amd64 and x86 unnecessarily on
the bug's CC list while they have
been already done.

So, instead of actually helping out, like filing a new bug for updating
the outdated devmanual text
regarding major arches stabilizations to reflect statements from their
leads, no help was received...

>
> You know me well enough to know that I'm not messing with your work,
> at least not intentionally; if you do see it, feel free to /query me.
>
> Please consider to apologize to me in return...
>

You can expect same tone from me here on out if you continue with
intervening on stuff with the QA badge
that has no relationship to QA at all, not really going to give an
apology for the tone either

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2609 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:49:20 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> stable was broken, and now it isn't, everything was done properly,
> what more motive you need?

QA, none; but Alon needs that motives, hence I asked him to talk to you.

> Then I can't possibly understand your reasoning to intervene on
> something that doesn't concern you, or the QA team, in the first
> place, at all Sort of makes this even worse

There's no intervention; as for concern, GLEP 48 says "The QA team is
also tasked with the authority to ensure tree policies are respected"
which means that the first logical next step for us is to await your
talk and check up with the arch teams which is what was did here.

> > I'm expecting apologies from you too, given the statements that I've
> > quoted in the sub thread, it's a waste of valuable time to everyone
> > involved, both you and me; so, I do apologize for trying to help
> > out.
> 
> Help out?

Yes, help.

> Everything technical (and technical is the only thing that matters to
> QA) had already been done.

No, that was not the case; the QA team was awaiting technical responses
from the both of you, as well as the arch teams.

> The time waste is still on-going, with amd64 and x86 unnecessarily on
> the bug's CC list while they have been already done.

They are aware they are CC-ed and keep themselves CC-ed; so, they are
free to remove themselves as they see fit.

> So, instead of actually helping out, like filing a new bug for
> updating the outdated devmanual text regarding major arches
> stabilizations to reflect statements from their leads, no help was
> received...

Before we can write up a commit, we first need to know the details;
I've asked for them in #gentoo-qa, which are still awaiting a response.

> > You know me well enough to know that I'm not messing with your work,
> > at least not intentionally; if you do see it, feel free to /query
> > me.
> >
> > Please consider to apologize to me in return...
> >
> 
> You can expect same tone from me here on out if you continue with
> intervening on stuff with the QA badge that has no relationship to QA
> at all, not really going to give an apology for the tone either

We're tasked by GLEP 48 to do so; if that's not expected, feel free to
propose a change, otherwise the QA team continues to fulfill this task.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 402 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:05:21 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I've asked for them in #gentoo-qa, [..]

Nevermind, I see they've been posted elsewhere in this thread recently.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 11/05/14 17:14, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:43:04 +0000
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Exactly, they should rather be the guys who jump in discussions that
>> affect tree consistency etc. and help with general inquiries.
> If only the community would expect and know us to be those guys.
>
> Tried to help with a general inquiry today where QA team was CC-ed ...
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509962#c3
>
> ... where I ...
>
>  1) hold on to policy by quoting it, which QA is asked to do;
>  2) give Samuli the benefit of doubt, as to let him talk first;
>  3) contact multiple persons from the arch teams to be fully aware,
>     answers ranging from "Samuli can do that" [a personal exception?]
>     to "That's rude" [the opposite of that exception?]; so, confusing;
>  4) explicitly choose not to bitch at all or escalate to ComRel;
>  5) ...
>
> ... but in response I get ...

what do you expect, if every second day you end up protecting your
work from the qa@ team's newer developers, including yourself, never
admitting any wrong doings, never receiving an proper apology for the
wasted time, slapping QA tag on it

in total, you can count the wasted time in days, if not soon in weeks,
not minutes, so i feel
the time for "extra" politeness has passed, already gave it a go, didn't
get the expected
results

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 893 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 20:28:12 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> what do you expect, if every second day you end up protecting your
> work from the qa@ team's newer developers, including yourself, never
> admitting any wrong doings, never receiving an proper apology for the
> wasted time, slapping QA tag on it
>
> in total, you can count the wasted time in days, if not soon in weeks,
> not minutes,

What do you mean by protecting, wrong doings and wasted time?

> so i feel the time for "extra" politeness has passed, already gave it
> a go, didn't get the expected results

Nobody gets the expected results; so, please reconsider the politeness.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
>  3) contact multiple persons from the arch teams to be fully aware,
>     answers ranging from "Samuli can do that" [a personal exception?]
>     to "That's rude" [the opposite of that exception?]; so, confusing;

Honestly, vague accusations don't serve much purpose here.

Either keep details private to protect identities if you want to talk
about something in general, or just come out and say what you're
concerned with so that we can talk about it in specific.  Naming names
but not the details is basically the worst of both worlds...

I don't know the details of what exactly Samuli stabilized, but
speaking only for myself my understanding of amd64 arch team policy is
that in general we're fine with developers stabilizing their own
packages as long as they actually test them on a stable amd64 system
and otherwise follow all the policies for the stable branch (no major
bugs, ~arch for 30 days, etc).

Rumor has it that the package that was stabilized wasn't one he
maintained, and that the maintainer wasn't given an opportunity to
chime in.  That isn't something anybody should be doing (arch team or
not).  If somebody wants to stabilize something they don't maintain
but the maintainer doesn't object, I don't see a big problem with it
as long as it is tested/etc.  The amd64 team traditionally hasn't been
very territorial about its role, perhaps because the arch is so
ubiquitous.

I don't really see a need for personal exceptions.

That is just my two cents and understanding of what the amd64 arch
team generally does, speaking as somebody who has been on the team in
come capacity for the better part of a decade.  We haven't really been
super-organized as a project in recent years, so I'm not sure anybody
can really speak for the team as a whole.  If we had annual lead
elections then we'd be in a better place to dictate policy.


Honestly, concern about devs messing with stable keywords should
probably just be brought to the attention of arch teams and left at
that.  QA is everybody's business, and this seems like QA, but in this
sort of case the arch teams are in a better position to decide if
there is a problem.

Disclaimer - again I don't know the particulars of what happened, so
to the extent that I'm only hearing part of the story (which is rather
likely), take what applies and ignore the rest.  And again, all of the
above is just my personal two cents.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 11/05/14 21:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The amd64 team traditionally hasn't been very territorial about its
> role, perhaps because the arch is so ubiquitous.

For reference, a mail from the amd64@ lead KingTaco from 2007 at
gentoo-core@:

"All-

  Due to my failure to keep the amd64 team on track, I must now ask for your
help.  We have 101 keywording bugs and 16 Security bugs, found at [1]
and [2].
 It is simply too much work for me to do without holding up the release
even more.

If you are the maintainer of a package that currently has open bugs for
amd64
stabilization and own amd64 hardware, please do your own testing and keyword
your packages.

I apologize for every late bug due to the amd64 team slacking off.

Mike Doty

[1] - http://tinyurl.com/2uanmp
[2] - http://tinyurl.com/3e2z56
-- 
gentoo-core@gentoo.org mailing list
"

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 11/05/14 21:09, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 11/05/14 21:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> The amd64 team traditionally hasn't been very territorial about its
>> role, perhaps because the arch is so ubiquitous.
> For reference, a mail from the amd64@ lead KingTaco from 2007 at
> gentoo-core@:
>
> "All-
>
>   Due to my failure to keep the amd64 team on track, I must now ask for your
> help.  We have 101 keywording bugs and 16 Security bugs, found at [1]
> and [2].
>  It is simply too much work for me to do without holding up the release
> even more.
>
> If you are the maintainer of a package that currently has open bugs for
> amd64
> stabilization and own amd64 hardware, please do your own testing and keyword
> your packages.
>
> I apologize for every late bug due to the amd64 team slacking off.
>
> Mike Doty
>
> [1] - http://tinyurl.com/2uanmp
> [2] - http://tinyurl.com/3e2z56

For futher reference, a thread from #gentoo-dev, Freenode, around 2007,
including amd64 lead:

"<ulm> !herd amd64
<jeeves> ulm: (amd64) angelos, beandog, cardoe, chutzpah, cryos, dang, diox,
dmwaters, hparker, kingtaco, kugelfang, malc, metalgod, philantrop,
rbu, sekretarz, tester, tomk, trapni, voxus, welp, wolf31o2
<ulm> ^^ping
<kingtaco|work> yes?
<ulm> kingtaco|work: I'm about to file a stablereq bug for about 70 packages
in app-emacs
<kingtaco|work> gah
<ulm> kingtaco|work: just wanted to ask how we should handle it
<kingtaco|work> well
<kingtaco|work> do you run stable amd64?
<ulm> kingtaco|work: not regularly, but opfer and me have machines available
<ulm> kingtaco|work: in principle this stuff should be arch-independent
anyway
<kingtaco|work> ulm, for something like this, there are 2 paths.  you
can file
the bugs & tracker like usual or, if you have a stable amd64
root using portage, I would allow you to keyword
<kingtaco|work> I assume you're trying to make the snapshot?
<ulm> kingtaco|work: at least for some of the packages it would be nice
<ulm> it's mostly a matter to synchronise amd64 with x86
<kingtaco|work> ulm, they would probably be low on the priority list of
stuff
to stabalize, so it sounds like it would be better to have the
emacs herd do the keywording
<ulm> kingtaco|work: the emacs team would prefer this, too ;)
<ulm> kingtaco|work: but i'm going to open a bug for it anyway
<kingtaco|work> ulm, ok, our requirements are a stable root and portage
as the
pkg manager
<kingtaco|work> and yes, a bug so we all know what's going on is good
<phreak``> kingtaco|work: damn, I thought you accepted one of the
alternatives
* phreak`` runs
<phreak``> better fast I take it
<phreak``> :P
<hparker> it's not like anyone uses emacs
* hparker runs
<kingtaco|work> phreak``, nope.  I don't care if other devs use is for
 whatever, but for amd64 our package manager is portage
<phreak``> hparker: if taco ain't nobody ;)
<hparker> phreak``: I know ;)
<kingtaco|work> and yes, I'm an emacs wh0re
<phreak``> kingtaco|work: just messing with you :-)
<ulm> kingtaco|work: in addition we have some 10 packages (in app-emacs,
too)
to be keyworded ~amd64. Same procedure for them, I assume?
<kingtaco|work> ulm, jup
<kingtaco|work> ulm, so long as it's not a system dep, I'm more than
happy to
let herds do the keywording"

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 802 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:12:02 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> For futher reference, [...]

This has also been acknowledged by the Council in 2008, here:

    http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20080313-summary.txt

    kingtaco (mike) said it's hard to keep people interested in
    keywording.

    Anyone interested has had permission to keyword and stabilize
    non-system packages since 2007.1 (see -core email from kingtaco
    with subject "AMD64 keywording")

Thank you for the quotes & references, I'll write a patch for devmanual.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 608 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote:

> For reference, a mail from the amd64@ lead KingTaco from 2007 at
> gentoo-core@:

> [...]

> If you are the maintainer of a package that currently has open bugs
> for amd64 stabilization and own amd64 hardware, please do your own
> testing and keyword your packages.

Really, an e-mail to -core from 2007 is a great reference for a
policy. ;-)

So, could this sentence be added to some document where it can
actually be found? I'd suggest the devmanual:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html#stabilization-rules

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:30:20 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Really, an e-mail to -core from 2007 is a great reference for a
> policy. ;-)

It keeps older developers always one step ahead of the youngsters. :-D

> So, could this sentence be added to some document where it can
> actually be found? I'd suggest the devmanual:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html#stabilization-rules

This makes me question how much other such policies float around;
especially given what was discussed at our last QA meeting regarding
policies being spread out on the Gentoo Wiki, and other places.

For this specific policy, I plan to write up a patch tomorrow for the
devmanual, such that we don't repeat history; as discussed, we need to
look at the other policies someday, especially the QA related ones.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 22:25:57 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

> This makes me question how much other such policies float around;
> especially given what was discussed at our last QA meeting regarding
> policies being spread out on the Gentoo Wiki, and other places.

Any requirements for keywording/stabilisation *should* already be
documented on each Arch team's project page. As these are specific to
each architecture, collecting them in a single place means unnecessary
duplication and all the usual problems that tends to cause.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1707 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 01:48:36 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 May 2014 22:25:57 +0200
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > This makes me question how much other such policies float around;
> > especially given what was discussed at our last QA meeting regarding
> > policies being spread out on the Gentoo Wiki, and other places.
> 
> Any requirements for keywording/stabilisation *should* already be
> documented on each Arch team's project page. As these are specific to
> each architecture, collecting them in a single place means unnecessary
> duplication and all the usual problems that tends to cause.

Yes, it should; the suggestion to formalize it came up back in January:

    "1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages
    on arch's they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch
    teams, but I think it would be good to formalize it."

    http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89673

It was shortly pointed out by Sergey at some point, which might've gone
lost in the length of the thread; other parts of the thread don't seem
to suggest that this policy is known, and nobody questions this reply.

    "amd64 and x86 arch teams have agreement, that maintainers can
    stabilize their packages if they know how to properly test them."

    http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89711

But now we know where this originates; so, I'll write a patch tomorrow.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2615 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 14:06:34 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >  3) contact multiple persons from the arch teams to be fully aware,
> >     answers ranging from "Samuli can do that" [a personal
> > exception?] to "That's rude" [the opposite of that exception?]; so,
> > confusing;
> 
> Honestly, vague accusations don't serve much purpose here.
>
> Either keep details private to protect identities if you want to talk
> about something in general, or just come out and say what you're
> concerned with so that we can talk about it in specific.  Naming names
> but not the details is basically the worst of both worlds...

It is an example, not an accusation; it is a heavily redacted detail,
without naming any names. This is just yet another case to learn from.

Maybe I should go have a drink with Samuli and laugh about the event.
 
> Rumor has it [...]

That's a good song; reading its lyrics, it might fit the situation... :)

> I don't really see a need for personal exceptions.

To give that context, it was meant to suggest a lot of developers,
given that they make use of sufficient arch testing practices; not just
Samuli in specific, I apologize for the unintended word "personal".

> We haven't really been super-organized as a project in recent years,
> so I'm not sure anybody can really speak for the team as a whole.

That's the impression I get from talking to multiple arch members, I'm
told different things; I think the arch team is used to their habits,
thus communication is no longer common, which causes thoughts to shift.

> Honestly, concern about devs messing with stable keywords should
> probably just be brought to the attention of arch teams and left at
> that.  QA is everybody's business, and this seems like QA, but in this
> sort of case the arch teams are in a better position to decide if
> there is a problem.

Yes, that's why I've told Alon to talk to Samuli and the arch teams;
with the intention to have them sort this out with each other, without
the need to escalate this to teams like QA, ComRel, Council.

But I'm someone that respects communication, documentation and policy;
call it being afraid of failure, I want to do things the right way. OCD

Perhaps that devmanual reference made Samuli upset; if so, sorry...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2369 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 09:22:37 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> wrote:

> Granted, I'm not sure what you expect anybody to do about the
> tinderbox, as the only thing that requires is somebody to step up and
> just do the work.
> 
> I agree with your point that a tinderbox would be useful - adding more
> bug reports to bugzilla is a good thing, and some will get ignored,
> but others will get fixed which otherwise wouldn't be noticed.
> However, I don't really see QA as the thing standing in the way of a
> tinderbox.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not a big fan of QA taking on the role of the body that
> makes controversial decisions.  I think they're the right place to
> start with questions like these, but when there is an issue that isn't
> clear-cut I think that is what the council is for.  I'm not saying
> that QA shouldn't ever be able to make policy - only that it should
> use discretion when doing so, and that seems to be what is happening
> here.

+1

True. QA could be perceived as ComRel, but then for technical issues;
where people need to discuss first, after which we can look at it, talk
with everyone and act what is in everyone's best interest.

After that discussion, the borderline on whether or not to contact QA
after such discussion has to do with whether it is a ...

 - Portage tree issue (inconsistency, breakage, repoman, QA, ...)

   => Consider to go first QA, then Council.

 - Something that affects Gentoo in another way (project issues,
   maintainer issues, EAPI changes, GLEP, metastructure, services, ...)

   => Not QA's scope, though we will suggest [and have done so in the
   past with old EAPIs] such matters to the Council if it benefits the
   Portage tree and in particular some issue that is in QA's scope.

This is the case for issues that are or would be controversial; of
course, some non-controversial could skip a discussion, but in general
we need to make sure we don't skip a discussion as otherwise we can't
respect GLEP 48 asking us to act in the best interest of all developers.

This is also what early experience with recent happenings suggests...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1813 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:46:31 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Well, if QA team members confuses "bugs" with "bug reports"
> and say they don't want to do actual work (aka tinderbox),

Where has QA stated that they don't want to do that?

No, that was stated nowhere; as far as a statement goes, I've stated
what its priority is, which doesn't imply that we don't want to do it.

> because it would cause more "bugs",

Did you mean "bug reports"?

> then I have serious doubts about their technical understanding of
> certain issues.

Which doubts about which issues do you have?

> This isn't the first time... you probably know, the gtk3 vs gtk2 vs
> gtk flag issue is still UNRESOLVED.

It is pending GNOME team feedback.

> I pushed for a clear decision often enough (must be more than a year
> now) and here we are, still without any. The same applies for
> tinderbox, applies for pkg-config discussion, applies for...

The new QA team has only been around for 4 months; you can't expect
everything to magically happen in that time, given a backlog of bugs
that the previous QA team left behind (including old Tinderbox runs).

Tinderbox bug has been visible to us for 2 months; so far, we've been
busy so haven't picked it up yet, as well as have insufficient hardware.

The pkg-config discussion has a consensus that differs from your
opinion, I think that the QA team (with interest from _all_ developers
[GLEP 48]) isn't going to override the community consensus here; even if
the QA Team would, the Council members have voiced their opinion...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Patrick Lauer]

On Saturday 10 May 2014 12:46:31 hasufell wrote:
> Samuli Suominen:
> > On 09/05/14 21:37, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>> It's counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of
> >>> each package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk"
> >>> possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use.
> >> 
> >> So, rehashing it in a thread to which it is unrelated yields no results.
> > 
> > I'm not so sure, it seems QA is picking policies as per what some loud
> > people on the ML say as opposed to giving overwhelming technical arguments
> > their proper weight
> 
> Well, if QA team members confuses "bugs" with "bug reports" and say they
> don't want to do actual work (aka tinderbox), because it would cause
> more "bugs", then I have serious doubts about their technical
> understanding of certain issues.

It's not about "want", it's about having the resources (mostly time) to do so.

If you wish to experience that for yourself - just build everything (I can 
give you a script to do so), and then triage bugs. It's great fun for the first 
few hundred failures :)

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[hasufell]

Patrick Lauer:
> On Saturday 10 May 2014 12:46:31 hasufell wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen:
>>> On 09/05/14 21:37, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>>>> It's counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of
>>>>> each package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk"
>>>>> possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use.
>>>>
>>>> So, rehashing it in a thread to which it is unrelated yields no results.
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure, it seems QA is picking policies as per what some loud
>>> people on the ML say as opposed to giving overwhelming technical arguments
>>> their proper weight
>>
>> Well, if QA team members confuses "bugs" with "bug reports" and say they
>> don't want to do actual work (aka tinderbox), because it would cause
>> more "bugs", then I have serious doubts about their technical
>> understanding of certain issues.
> 
> It's not about "want", it's about having the resources (mostly time) to do so.
> 
> If you wish to experience that for yourself - just build everything (I can 
> give you a script to do so), and then triage bugs. It's great fun for the first 
> few hundred failures :)
> 

I hear you.

Anyway, last time I spoke with the QA lead, he said that QA has
currently enough manpower.

It's a little bit confusing.

What I am pissed about are the arguments other people have given (not
you), not the missing tinderbox... really. I appreciate every hour
people put in gentoo. It isn't about "you didn't get enough stuff done",
at all.

It is about some comments that reveal the way QA (or some parts of it)
thinks about itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

Something about that needs to change, IMO. And I don't necessarily mean
a regrouping of members or something similar. We already tried that,
didn't we? Let's not make it a habit.


It's sad that you have to yell out that loud before people actually
listen. But the fact is... you have to.
In the end, the blame is on the guy who yelled, not on the people who
didn't listen, because CoC doesn't really cover the latter.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2639 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 21:12:36 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
 
> Anyway, last time I spoke with the QA lead, he said that QA has
> currently enough manpower.
> 
> It's a little bit confusing.

Please ask him as to why, he's not reading this ML atm; while I could
guess random reasons, I'm not entirely sure so it confuses me as well.

From my viewpoint, more people want to sign up for QA; at which point, I
would personally question at which size the QA team becomes too large...

... although we have a Portage team of that size; from what I recall
from there, is that it becomes nasty to organize meetings that way.

> What I am pissed about are the arguments other people have given (not
> you), not the missing tinderbox... really. I appreciate every hour
> people put in gentoo. It isn't about "you didn't get enough stuff
> done", at all.

+1

> It is about some comments that reveal the way QA (or some parts of it)
> thinks about itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sincerely, the QA team had a rough time figuring that out; given that we
started from a clean slate with nothing to refer to, or in other words
we weren't mentored into a QA role. For an insight of how I think about
QA; please really consider to read the attachment, it is an intact
version of the application that I've written towards the Gentoo Council.

It features some topics that I think might be an interesting read:

 - What did the python-exec blocker learn us?
 - How to indicate regressions much faster?
 - What do I think the new Gentoo QA team should look like?
 - What can we do to make the new Gentoo QA team more effective?
 - What other work is there to do?
 - Comments & References

But I'd like to know your view on it, I have two (or four) questions:

 - How do you want the QA team to be (or not be)?
 - What parts do you think we do wrong (or right)?

Feel free to reflect the application and recent QA work, I'm all ears.

> Something about that needs to change, IMO. And I don't necessarily
> mean a regrouping of members or something similar. We already tried
> that, didn't we? Let's not make it a habit.
>
> It's sad that you have to yell out that loud before people actually
> listen. But the fact is... you have to.
>
> In the end, the blame is on the guy who yelled, not on the people who
> didn't listen, because CoC doesn't really cover the latter.

+1

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #1.2: TomWij_QA_Application.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 6662 bytes --]

Hello Gentoo Council members

As you are looking for developers for the new Gentoo QA team, I want
you to know that I am interested in contributing and have time for it
at least the next one and a half year. I share you my thoughts and plan:

== What did the python-exec blocker learn us? ==

We need to (re)organize our QA.

It is important to gain a clear understanding of what is happening and
to evaluate the resolution and results. A package move was done as a
resolution; but, it turned out to result in that blocker. The lack of a
QA team noticing this, the lack of them helping the maintainer and the
lack of testing this is what made this easily slip by and hit everyone.

As the blocker appeared in multiple support mediums, it took time until
we came to a solution for this blocker. Identification and awareness of
such user experience regressions should be much faster. It was a long
time until news was brought out and a resolution arrived.

Ideally our process should be that we are prepared or can prevent that;
for situations where FUD regarding a particular solution arises, proper
help and testing should point out which solution is the way to pursue.
But, preventing everything is a dream; so, ...

== How to indicate regressions much faster? ==

We can react earlier by automatically gathering output and/or logs from
Bugzilla, Forums and IRC; which allows us to automatically identify
newly developing as well as reoccurring problems.

Since it requires quite some processing, I think this project needs
more than one person, or at least I think so until further study shows
how easy this is to implement; I thus wonder if the rest of the QA team
would be interested in helping out on such an effort.

== What do I think the new Gentoo QA team should look like? ==

Gentoo QA ...

 - should be neutral or positive. We should put user and developer
   experience in front and definitely be forgiving for mostly harmless
   mistakes that only happen once or twice;

 - should only intervene if it is absolutely necessary, or when
   contributing results is making Gentoo Linux and its content,
   services and processes of better quality;

 - should meet at least on a monthly basis (or more often), like the
   Gentoo Council, to keep focus on QA and discuss so we can progress;

 - should mark their actions with QA to make it clear it are QA actions;

 - should do different tasks than Gentoo Council and Gentoo ComRel, as
   we are not decisive and also shouldn't and cannot give out warnings.

I would act this way and hope the rest would do so as well. :)

== What can we do to make the new Gentoo QA team more effective? ==

For the new Gentoo QA team to become more effective, we should put
extra focus on obtaining good metric reports the first one or two weeks.

For example; after starting the Bug Cleaners project, I came up with
an idea that we also need QA metrics that indicate which packages are
unmaintained but assigned to other people than maintainer-needed@g.o.

A first metric is to check for the packages with the most amount of
bugs, for which I wrote a script [1] which gives us output [2]; as you
can see, this first version rather gives a list that shows the most
popular packages that the most bugs are filed for. It does this by
obtaining the open bug lists [3], then processing and filters them to
have a list of ATOMs with associated bug ID, then count them.

This metric is different from what we want to achieve, we want to find
unmaintained packages. So, to improve this metric I plan to take the
commit history into account which should effectively tell us "the most
popular packages (on Bugzilla) for which the least commits happened".

This last metric matches the description of "unmaintained" much better.

For the Portage tree we already have AutoRepoman [4][5] by Patrick,
which we need to put to good use as there is work to be done there.

== What other work is there to do? ==

 - Look for QA issues that bother users every day on the support
   mediums and look if we can relieve or resolve that burden.

 - Cleaning obsolete entries in profiles/, for example in package.mask
   there are a lot of entries that have been there for a long time;
   they are either no longer present or are lingering on QA issues.

 - Decrease the amount of unmaintained packages by looking (together
   with PR / Recruiters / ...) into ways we can bring in more manpower,
   as well as look if we can improve the processes used for this.

 - Improve documentation, policy and other reading material where
   missing information results in confusion or inconsistency; based on
   reached consensus by the developers and/or the Gentoo Council.

 - Indicate long standing QA related issues and discuss with the QA
   team towards a resolution, such that we can move on and progress.

 - Evaluating GLEPs to see if they are still relevant, renewing
   sentences that became out of date, ensuring an author or herd that
   can be contacted is listed (marking retired devs as retired);
   reporting / submitting patches to the authors and/or Gentoo Council.

 - Write a version of AutoRepoman that would process commits as they
   happen, which allows for a quicker response. We should run them
   side-by-side, as some commits like eclass changes can result in a
   lot of computation time as a lot of ebuilds would need to be checked.
   (AutoRepoman fits this last purpose better as it prevents doing the
   same computation multiple times, when the eclass is touched twice)

 - ...

== Comments ==

Thank you very much for reading my application. Feel free to contact me.

PS: For a quick summary you can read every first paragraph sentence.

PPS: Personally I might also help or fork Portage [and its repoman and
QA warnings] and/or pkgcore if the drop in development continues. While
in the long run alternatives are made, in the short run we need to keep
Portage alive; Gentoo without an alive PM could result in bad quality.

== References ==

 [1]: Gist - Obtain the packages with the most amount of open bugs.
 https://gist.github.com/TomWij/d1ebf743360352ebb2bd

 [2]: Gist - Example output of the above Gist.
 https://gist.github.com/TomWij/93432255142b5fb81998

 [3]: Gentoo Bugzilla - Bot policies
 http://bugs.gentoo.org/bots.html 

 [4]: Patrick's playground - AutoRepoman
 http://gentooexperimental.org/~patrick/weblog/archives/2013-07.html

 [5]: Patrick's hosting - Repoman output for each category
 http://packages.gentooexperimental.org/repoman-checks/
 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3110 bytes --]

12.05.2014 01:12, hasufell пишет:
> Patrick Lauer:
>> On Saturday 10 May 2014 12:46:31 hasufell wrote:
>>> Samuli Suominen:
>>>> On 09/05/14 21:37, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>>>>> It's counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of
>>>>>> each package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk"
>>>>>> possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, rehashing it in a thread to which it is unrelated yields no results.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure, it seems QA is picking policies as per what some loud
>>>> people on the ML say as opposed to giving overwhelming technical arguments
>>>> their proper weight
>>>
>>> Well, if QA team members confuses "bugs" with "bug reports" and say they
>>> don't want to do actual work (aka tinderbox), because it would cause
>>> more "bugs", then I have serious doubts about their technical
>>> understanding of certain issues.
>>
>> It's not about "want", it's about having the resources (mostly time) to do so.
>>
>> If you wish to experience that for yourself - just build everything (I can 
>> give you a script to do so), and then triage bugs. It's great fun for the first 
>> few hundred failures :)
>>
> 
> I hear you.
> 
> Anyway, last time I spoke with the QA lead, he said that QA has
> currently enough manpower.
> 
> It's a little bit confusing.
> 
> What I am pissed about are the arguments other people have given (not
> you), not the missing tinderbox... really. I appreciate every hour
> people put in gentoo. It isn't about "you didn't get enough stuff done",
> at all.
> 
> It is about some comments that reveal the way QA (or some parts of it)
> thinks about itself. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Something about that needs to change, IMO. And I don't necessarily mean
> a regrouping of members or something similar. We already tried that,
> didn't we? Let's not make it a habit.
> 
> 
> It's sad that you have to yell out that loud before people actually
> listen. But the fact is... you have to.
> In the end, the blame is on the guy who yelled, not on the people who
> didn't listen, because CoC doesn't really cover the latter.
> 

You know that we do not forbid any ordinary developer to help us, that's
what said on our project page. If you think that you can create
tinderbox that can be official for Gentoo - just go for it and when you
will done - begin to receive kudos for great job.

Cause now i see much yelling about tinderbox(not only from you), but no
real progress globally. Diego did some job about tinderbox and Patrick
doing this job about it now.

What's your progress? Some scripts? Architectural design?

As for me - i said earlier: i can donate resources. I do not have enough
knowledge to build good tinderbox solution for the whole distro myself.
That's the true.

And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
get things done if you can.

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@gentoo.org> wrote:
> You know that we do not forbid any ordinary developer to help us, that's
> what said on our project page. If you think that you can create
> tinderbox that can be official for Gentoo - just go for it and when you
> will done - begin to receive kudos for great job.

Indeed, you don't even have to be a developer to run a tinderbox.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[hasufell]

Sergey Popov:
> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
> get things done if you can.
> 

This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
interested".

Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 577 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:21:15 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
> interested".
> 
> Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
> with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.

The QA team has never stated Tinderbox to be out of our interest.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[hasufell]

Tom Wijsman:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:21:15 +0000
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
>> interested".
>>
>> Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
>> with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.
> 
> The QA team has never stated Tinderbox to be out of our interest.
> 

I did not say that you stated that.

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:21:15 +0000 hasufell wrote:

>Sergey Popov:
>> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
>> get things done if you can.
>> 
>
>This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
>interested".
>
>Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
>with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.
>

Since I occasionally need a tinderbox for a couple of packages[1], I
already thought about building one myself. I have plenty of hardware I
could use for that but I cannot afford the power expenses these
machines generate while being powered on.
My idea is to ask a local server hosting company near my work place to
sponsor some units of rack space and the required IPs to run and access
the hardware.
I haven't spoken to them yet but I doubt they would do this without
getting something back. 
So anybody knows how good chances would be getting their company logo
added to the sponsors already being listed on http://www.gentoo.org when
they offer some sponsorship?

[1] sys-libs/db:5.3 for example which is masked like forever and can
only be umasked after a thorough tinderbox run

Cheers

-- 
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Matthew Summers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]

On May 15, 2014 8:07 AM, "Lars Wendler" <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:21:15 +0000 hasufell wrote:
>
> >Sergey Popov:
> >> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
> >> get things done if you can.
> >>
> >
> >This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
> >interested".
> >
> >Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
> >with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.
> >
>
> Since I occasionally need a tinderbox for a couple of packages[1], I
> already thought about building one myself. I have plenty of hardware I
> could use for that but I cannot afford the power expenses these
> machines generate while being powered on.
> My idea is to ask a local server hosting company near my work place to
> sponsor some units of rack space and the required IPs to run and access
> the hardware.
> I haven't spoken to them yet but I doubt they would do this without
> getting something back.
> So anybody knows how good chances would be getting their company logo
> added to the sponsors already being listed on http://www.gentoo.org when
> they offer some sponsorship?
>

If they commit to sponsorship they would definitely have a sidebar entry
available to them. Talk with robbat2 about any requirements, please.

> [1] sys-libs/db:5.3 for example which is masked like forever and can
> only be umasked after a thorough tinderbox run
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Lars Wendler
> Gentoo package maintainer
> GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC

Thanks,
Matt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2078 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:21 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Sergey Popov:
>> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
>> get things done if you can.
>>
>
> This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
> interested".
>
> Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
> with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.

Perhaps you should let QA speak for what it thinks its job is?  Note
that random posts in random bugs by random members of QA isn't the
same as QA saying something.

In any case, anybody who wants to run a tinderbox can run one.  They
can even work on a project to set up an "official" one.  You don't
have to be in the QA team to do QA either - you just don't have any
special authority if you do so.  Gentoo projects are allowed to
compete.

Honestly, this sort of argument can come across a bit like somebody
who has never even submitted a patch asking for cvs access, being told
to go contribute positively and they'll eventually get cvs access, and
then whining about how Gentoo doesn't want any new developers.  Don't
get me wrong - I realize that you do in fact contribute quite a bit
which is why you DO have commit access, so it isn't a great analogy.
My point is more that the QA team couldn't hold somebody back from
running a tinderbox even if they made it their sole mission in life.

I do things for Gentoo because I find it interesting, and I want to
give back since I benefit from it.  Sure, having commit access can
make it easier, but there are many who contribute to Gentoo without
even that.  You don't need to have a special job title to contribute
in almost any way.  That's the beauty of FOSS.

If you want to run a tinderbox, do it!  If you want to create a
tinderbox project and get others to help you with it, do it!  If you
get something running and want an infra box to run it on, bring it up,
though it would first make sense to get things working at a reduced
scale.  We can always find sponsors, and we get monetary donations
that could potentially be used to pay for a tinderbox.  What doesn't
make sense is to go out and spend a lot of money on hardware and then
find out that nobody has the time to do anything with it.  As has been
pointed out many times in the past, the CPU-hours is the least of your
problems when running a tinderbox.  If you can work out the process
for collecting and dealing with logs/etc then getting somebody to give
you plenty of cores to run it on should be easy.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 05/15/2014 01:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If you want to run a tinderbox, do it!  If you want to create a 
> tinderbox project and get others to help you with it, do it!  If
> you

I have to agree with this.  Running tinderbox(es) would be a project
in and of itself.  It would be cool to have a project to focus on
creating a useful set of scripts to tinderbox properly and then
everyone (like me) who says "Well I have resources to donate" could
actually do something more useful than brag about wasting their
hardware idling.

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=VSGf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Samuli Suominen]

On 15/05/14 20:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:21 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Sergey Popov:
>>> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
>>> get things done if you can.
>>>
>> This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
>> interested".
>>
>> Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
>> with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.
> Perhaps you should let QA speak for what it thinks its job is?  Note
> that random posts in random bugs by random members of QA isn't the
> same as QA saying something.

Except it is, that's what QA just voted in their own meeting,
one QA member represents the whole team.

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Samuli Suominen]

On 16/05/14 15:31, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 15/05/14 20:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:21 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Sergey Popov:
>>>> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
>>>> get things done if you can.
>>>>
>>> This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
>>> interested".
>>>
>>> Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
>>> with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.
>> Perhaps you should let QA speak for what it thinks its job is?  Note
>> that random posts in random bugs by random members of QA isn't the
>> same as QA saying something.
> Except it is, that's what QA just voted in their own meeting,
> one QA member represents the whole team.
>

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Summaries#Unclarities_wrt_what_.22QA_team.22_is

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1125 bytes --]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 15:31:33 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> On 15/05/14 20:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:21 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Sergey Popov:
> >>> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML
> >>> and get things done if you can.
> >>>
> >> This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
> >> interested".
> >>
> >> Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will
> >> work with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.
> > Perhaps you should let QA speak for what it thinks its job is?  Note
> > that random posts in random bugs by random members of QA isn't the
> > same as QA saying something.
> 
> Except it is, that's what QA just voted in their own meeting,
> one QA member represents the whole team.

No, GLEP 48 does not state that.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 15/05/14 20:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:21 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Sergey Popov:
>>>> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
>>>> get things done if you can.
>>>>
>>> This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
>>> interested".
>>>
>>> Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
>>> with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.
>> Perhaps you should let QA speak for what it thinks its job is?  Note
>> that random posts in random bugs by random members of QA isn't the
>> same as QA saying something.
>
> Except it is, that's what QA just voted in their own meeting,
> one QA member represents the whole team.

I suspect the intent of their vote was that QA members could take
action individually in the name of QA.  That doesn't necessarily mean
that every time you sneeze and a QA member says "God bless you" that
QA is making an official proclamation on the Gentoo state religion.

The QA team is a bit immature, but it is good practice to be explicit
when you're speaking on behalf of an official role.  I'm on the
Council, but nothing I'm posting in this email represents the opinion
of the Council, and beyond general code of conduct nobody is going to
get in trouble for ignoring it.  On the other hand, I just posted the
official summary of the last Council meeting and everybody should
assume by default that it DOES represent the opinion of the Council
and is enforceable.  That doesn't mean that somebody couldn't point
out a mistake and have it corrected, but it should be viewed as having
a place of authority.  However, when I'm posting random emails to the
lists, they should be viewed as my own personal opinion whether I
state so or not, especially since we tend to appoint roles like
QA/Comrel/Council/etc out of our active developer body and we don't
hire full-time professionals who only do those roles.

So, maybe what QA voted on was a bit sloppy, but if we want every
Gentoo policy to be absolutely without ambiguity or loophole than I'll
find something better to do with my time.  I'm personally convinced
that writing perfect laws to govern human behavior makes writing
perfect software seem almost trivial in comparison.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 680 bytes --]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:51:54 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I suspect the intent of their vote was that QA members could take
> action individually in the name of QA. [...]

You can read the meeting agenda ...

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Agenda

..., which shows the intent of the vote; it originates from ...

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3509

..., which was brought up by Samuli.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:51:54 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> I suspect the intent of their vote was that QA members could take
>> action individually in the name of QA. [...]
>
> You can read the meeting agenda ...
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Agenda
>
> ..., which shows the intent of the vote; it originates from ...
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3509
>
> ..., which was brought up by Samuli.
>

I understand that. My point is just that when members of QA want to
speak for QA, they should say so.

If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain with the commit comment
"update to newer EAPI" then I'm free to revert it if I consider the
change inappropriate (though obviously all devs should use discretion
when reverting anything).  If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain
with the commit comment "QA Change: update to newer EAPI" then I'm not
free to revert the change without working with him, QA, or the
Council, whether I think my previous ebuild violated policy or not.

Likewise, if tomwij comments on a bug, "I don't think a tinderbox is
worth QA's time" then it should be taken as personal opinion.  If he
comments, "QA has reviewed this request and feels it is not worth
pursing at this time" then that should be taken as the voice of QA
until demonstrated otherwise.

I occasionally post in bugs on behalf of the Council, and less
recently the Trustees.  When I do so I'm careful to state that my
comment is on their behalf, and as a result people take the
Council/Trustees seriously.  QA is intended to be operating closer to
the day-to-day fray and thus it can't be quite as deliberate in its
actions, but it is still helpful when QA members make it clear when
they're wearing their QA hats.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1621 bytes --]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:07:46 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> [...] My point is just that when members of QA want to speak for QA,
> they should say so.

That is currently happening; therefore, why is this brought up here?

> If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain with the commit comment
> "update to newer EAPI" then I'm free to revert it if I consider the
> change inappropriate (though obviously all devs should use discretion
> when reverting anything).  If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain
> with the commit comment "QA Change: update to newer EAPI" then I'm not
> free to revert the change without working with him, QA, or the
> Council, whether I think my previous ebuild violated policy or not.

QA commits that I do are prefixed with [QA], right from the start.

> Likewise, if tomwij comments on a bug, "I don't think a tinderbox is
> worth QA's time" then it should be taken as personal opinion.

While you use it as an example, that quote has never been said; but
yes, personal doubts / opinions / thoughts / ... are clearly expressed.

> If he comments, "QA has reviewed this request and feels it is not
> worth pursing at this time" then that should be taken as the voice of
> QA until demonstrated otherwise.

Verbally stating when it is QA is currently happening as well; it could
be that that is not visible, given the limited amount of QA votes.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 05/15/2014 07:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Sergey Popov:
>> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
>> get things done if you can.
>>
> 
> This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
> interested".
> 
> Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
> with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.
> 
> 
An excellent idea.

You can count me in on willing to donate resources, but I have basically
no time to dedicate to this personally.

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=uEDw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 945 bytes --]

15.05.2014 15:21, hasufell пишет:
> Sergey Popov:
>> And yes, we need tinderbox. But, c'mon. stop talking loudly on ML and
>> get things done if you can.
>>
> 
> This is like working on patches while upstream already said "not
> interested".
> 
> Since QA doesn't think it's their job to run a tinderbox, I will work
> with those people who actually care about it, instead of QA.
> 

Do not twist my words. I do not say that's not our job. I said that i,
personally, can not create proper solution. I can not speak for others.
And, if you did not notice, Patrick is a member of QA team and he runs
some kind of tinderbox, so, if your personal negative attitude to our
team prevails desire to cooperate and create proper solution - feel free
to do whatever you like.

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4201 bytes --]

On Fri, 09 May 2014 17:43:43 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I have problems believing in QA competence when I read comments like
> these:
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c14
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c17

What's the point about quality assurance if we only add bugs but never
fix them; we've already have a huge backlog of bugs, so, adding more of
them isn't going to get them fixed any time soon.

And if anyone has the server hardware and server administration skills
available to set this up, nobody stops him; but you can't expect the QA
team to set this up when we have a huge backlog of other bugs to do.

> You even blocked me out of the bug. I mean... wtf is happening here?

The bug is expecting a QA team response; not a random "lolwat?"
comment, neither a random comment about locking down enter_bug.cgi that
doesn't have to do with the bug at all. These aren't according to CoC.

Thus the bug is temporarily marked as QA-only, awaiting a decision.

> I'm not even sure the list can read those bug comments to understand
> what I mean. I used to believe it's lack of manpower/time or even
> laziness, but I am not sure anymore.

You seem to be confused. consider the full image of what Tinderbox does
as well as the current state of the QA related bugs in Bugzilla; while
it is nice to have, it is not a reason to drop all of our other work.

> Funnily... the meeting summary of march is lost where you were
> supposed to vote on the tinderbox matter.

Nothing to vote/discuss on, lack of server hardware and administration. 

> I am not sure either if that is "by accident" anymore. I pinged you
> guys often enough.

The people assigned to it are busy, they have been reminded about that;
we try to adapt to a model to do it during the meeting, which happened
to the very first and very last meeting and works out well.

> No one seems to have the logs anymore.

We do have the logs, just not the summary; created 23 days ago:

https://gist.github.com/TomWij/9d033e0fbb5ce4e43568

> Anyway, I had less trouble getting responses from the old QA team.
> When I ask you guys, I usually get one of these responses (or
> similar):
> * nothing, unless I ping you after 2 weeks again

Similar to bugs, sometimes you don't get a response on the first try;
this especially happens when everyone thinks that someone else of the
team will reply, in the end everyone forgets it in the pile of e-mails.

> * "probably not in QAs scope"

QA gets CC-ed a lot on things that are outside our scope; these are
either cases where the maintainer has to do something and QA has no
policy to act on, ...

> * "post on dev ML first, we don't know what to think"

... cases that might be controversial and need a dev ML discussion ...

> * "not sure if that's our business, appeal to council"

... or cases other than Portage tree policy, consistency or breakage.

> Not sure what's worth QA if they don't have strong opinions and try to
> avoid to piss off people.

We're not to be used as a weapon to piss off a maintainer; the QA team
looks into the best interest of all developers, not the developer that
happened to CC us first and wants to force the assignee to do a thing
for which a policy does not even exist or there's no breakage or an
uncontroversial inconsistency.

> I used to ask QA for guidance beforehand on delicate matters before I
> escalated elsewhere or chose a particular approach. That doesn't
> really work anymore, instead people expect me to fire up the
> bikeshedding dev-ML which is the worst place to get ideas and do
> constructive brainstorming.

If you view it as the worst place, it'll continue the worst place; get
your hopes up, because it's actually only proper escalation that works. 

> I expect infra to unblock bug 473 now. This is unacceptable.

Well, if you prefer improper escalation over proper discussion; fine.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Tinderbox and building everything

[Patrick Lauer]

On Friday 09 May 2014 17:43:43 hasufell wrote:
> I used to believe it's lack of manpower/time or even laziness, but I am
> not sure anymore.
> 
> blah blah tinderbox 

So, as someone who has done lots of package building in the past ...

My actual "tinderbox" was 12 lines of bash, split over two files. It's 
absolutely not a technical problem.

On my old hardware (dualcore amd64) I generated about 1k package build logs a 
day, with my current hardware that should easily be 5k logfiles.

Now the "building" part is relatively boring, but now you have the logfiles, 
you should do something with them. My heuristic was to grep for "Error:" at 
the beginning of a line, that was unique enough that I only saw two false 
positives so far. On a good day that was about 150 files to process.

(There's some interesting setup issues that you'll encounter, but most of 
those can be scripted away, e.g. some packages need kernel sources -> emerge 
gentoo-sources; cd /usr/src/linux; make defconfig modules_prepare )

With an optimized workflow I could get my processing time to around one minute 
per logfile on average, my personal best was filing 160 bugs in 90 minutes. This 
is a lot of tedious work - and I stopped doing it once Flameeyes was doing the 
same and we had about 90% "the same" bugs, thus making my work redundant 
enough that it wasn't worth the time.

THAT is the bottleneck - getting people motivated to triage logs (which can be 
automated quite far) and file bugs (which is demotivating and exhausting). You 
fix that problem and the rest is easy ...

If you expect this to happen in any reasonable way ... either pay me to do it 
(I have the experience, but not the time), motivate others (hahaha), or do it 
yourself.

Have fun,

Patrick

Re: [gentoo-project] Tinderbox and building everything

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> THAT is the bottleneck - getting people motivated to triage logs (which can be
> automated quite far) and file bugs (which is demotivating and exhausting). You
> fix that problem and the rest is easy ...

Agree for the most part.

Also, nobody needs "permission" to run a tinderbox.  If you want to
run one, just do it!  Complaining about other people not doing it
isn't terribly productive.

The typical tinderbox approach I've seen is that you have a suite of
tests that get run as frequently as the box can manage, and if a test
fails everybody stops committing and cleans up the tree.  Such a model
basically makes dealing with errors everybody's problem, and not just
the tinderbox guy's.

The problem is that with something like Gentoo the permutations are
fairly extensive, the tree is extremely diverse, and I could see
countless arguments about what constitutes an error that needs to be
fixed.  That might be part of why nobody wants to run a tinderbox.

If you want to find bugs, though, a real easy way to start is to just
unpack the current stage3, set the profile to kde or gnome, stick
gnome/kde-meta in world, and do an emerge -auDNv world.  There is a
decent chance that you'll run into a build failure, just like anybody
trying to install Gentoo for the first time.  Seems like a good place
to start if anybody wants to do a tinderbox (note that I haven't done
this too recently - for a while I was doing it monthly and filing bugs
fairly consistently)...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Tinderbox and building everything

[hasufell]

Patrick Lauer:
> 
> If you expect this to happen in any reasonable way ... either pay me to do it 
> (I have the experience, but not the time), motivate others (hahaha), or do it 
> yourself.
> 

I don't have a problem with your line of argumentation, I have a problem
with what the lead and "deputy lead" (or whatever the title is called)
said. I can't even take their comments seriously.

Re: [gentoo-project] Tinderbox and building everything

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1313 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:50:15 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I don't have a problem with your line of argumentation, I have a
> problem with what the lead and "deputy lead" (or whatever the title
> is called) said. I can't even take their comments seriously.

It is way more serious if you consider my comment to be like driving
a car when you haven't even fixed its brakes; there are different
priorities involved here, one is much more important than the other.

People that don't want to consider the full picture are welcome to call
it silly, childish or non-serious; however, I'm serious about it and I
hope the QA team (which that comment addresses) is serious as well.

As for build failures; that boils down to either the maintainer fixing
it as it is their problem, treecleaners cleaning it (but even they have
a long backlog) or someone that is interested to fix it. But in no way
it is QA's problem; as our task is Quality Assurance, which doesn't*
imply fixing maintainer's problems (but does imply m-n / cleaning it).

 * We can try to help to some extent.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Tinderbox and building everything

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 10-05-2014 a las 17:50 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
[...]
> As for build failures; that boils down to either the maintainer fixing
> it as it is their problem, treecleaners cleaning it (but even they have
> a long backlog) or someone that is interested to fix it. But in no way
> it is QA's problem; as our task is Quality Assurance, which doesn't*
> imply fixing maintainer's problems (but does imply m-n / cleaning it).
> 
>  * We can try to help to some extent.
> 

At least from my point of view (as member or treecleaners), I would
welcome the tinderbox as would help to detect more broken packages, some
of them really old and that are not going to be fixed but, as nobody
uses them, they are broken for a long time without noticing.

Re: [gentoo-project] Tinderbox and building everything

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3231 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 21:12:54 +0200
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

> At least from my point of view (as member or treecleaners), I would
> welcome the tinderbox as would help to detect more broken packages,
> some of them really old and that are not going to be fixed but, as
> nobody uses them, they are broken for a long time without noticing.

From the previous Tinderbox run there are a considerable amount of bugs
left behind that could be used; we can start there first, or instead
take bugs compared to commits in general and draw up a list from that.

Taking the top example from such list, recent bugs of sys-power/pm-utils
are longer being fixed for newly filed bugs after 2011; as evidenced
from the following URL if you scroll down to the unresolved ones.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL%20sys-power%2Fpm-utils

There are some more packages in the generated list below; as further as
you go, they become less and less candidate, but at the very least they
suggest which packages are still less maintained than we would like.

As to how to tell whether a package is broken and not fixable; bug
counts won't tell you, but manual investigation of its bugs does.

That's the case as long as we don't care about Priority / Severity;
talking about priorities, I think the list below is more important than
to remove unused packages which effort would have a low RoI value.

Tinderbox is something we should have sooner than later; but I don't
see why it needs to be a hype, added today or drop important work.

Not to forget about the amount of bug reports that get lost on IRC, the
Gentoo Forums or doesn't even reach us; eg. http://gentwoo.elisp.net/

Fetch statistics:
    Open bugs: 19971

Processing statistics:
    Open bugs without an ATOM (= no slash):              4205
    Open bugs with an ATOM (= slash, matches paths too): 15766

Filter statistics:
    Open bugs for a package outside the Portage tree
    (or mismatch, new ebuild or path):                   4182
    Open bugs which have a package in the Portage tree:  11584

Packages with most open bugs for the least amount of last year commits:
    5.000000 sys-power/pm-utils (Bugs: 15; Commits: 3)
    4.000000 net-analyzer/nagios-plugins (Bugs: 12; Commits: 3; Proxied)
    3.000000 sys-process/audit (Bugs: 9; Commits: 3)
    3.000000 media-tv/linuxtv-dvb-firmware (Bugs: 12; Commits: 4; Herd)
    2.875000 app-portage/g-cpan (Bugs: 23; Commits: 8)
    2.833333 net-p2p/rtorrent (Bugs: 17; Commits: 6; Herd)
    2.666666 net-analyzer/nagios (Bugs: 8; Commits: 3; Proxied)
    2.333333 net-wireless/wimax (Bugs: 7; Commits: 3; Unmaintained)
    2.333333 dev-perl/PortageXS (Bugs: 7; Commits: 3; Proxied)
    2.333333 dev-lang/rubinius (Bugs: 7; Commits: 3; Herd)
    2.333333 dev-db/firebird (Bugs: 14; Commits: 6; Proxied)
    2.333333 app-admin/sysklogd (Bugs: 7; Commits: 3; Herd)
    2.000000 sci-mathematics/flint (Bugs: 6; Commits: 3)
    ...      ...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Tinderbox and building everything

[Markos Chandras]

On 05/10/2014 08:12 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El sáb, 10-05-2014 a las 17:50 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
> [...]
>> As for build failures; that boils down to either the maintainer fixing
>> it as it is their problem, treecleaners cleaning it (but even they have
>> a long backlog) or someone that is interested to fix it. But in no way
>> it is QA's problem; as our task is Quality Assurance, which doesn't*
>> imply fixing maintainer's problems (but does imply m-n / cleaning it).
>>
>>  * We can try to help to some extent.
>>
> 
> At least from my point of view (as member or treecleaners), I would
> welcome the tinderbox as would help to detect more broken packages, some
> of them really old and that are not going to be fixed but, as nobody
> uses them, they are broken for a long time without noticing.
> 
> 

While this is true, it's is not an immediate problem. If a package is
terribly broken, but nobody uses it, then all it does is to occupy a few
KB of cvs space. It is a problem, but not a problem we need to be
nervous about.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras

Re: [gentoo-project] Tinderbox and building everything

[Pacho Ramos]

El lun, 12-05-2014 a las 21:05 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
> On 05/10/2014 08:12 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El sáb, 10-05-2014 a las 17:50 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
> > [...]
> >> As for build failures; that boils down to either the maintainer fixing
> >> it as it is their problem, treecleaners cleaning it (but even they have
> >> a long backlog) or someone that is interested to fix it. But in no way
> >> it is QA's problem; as our task is Quality Assurance, which doesn't*
> >> imply fixing maintainer's problems (but does imply m-n / cleaning it).
> >>
> >>  * We can try to help to some extent.
> >>
> > 
> > At least from my point of view (as member or treecleaners), I would
> > welcome the tinderbox as would help to detect more broken packages, some
> > of them really old and that are not going to be fixed but, as nobody
> > uses them, they are broken for a long time without noticing.
> > 
> > 
> 
> While this is true, it's is not an immediate problem. If a package is
> terribly broken, but nobody uses it, then all it does is to occupy a few
> KB of cvs space. It is a problem, but not a problem we need to be
> nervous about.
> 

Ah, sure. I was referring that I would welcome that, but that it's not
so urgent (not sure if maybe "welcome" has a different sense for native
speakers :S)

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Samuli Suominen]

On 09/05/14 18:29, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2014 14:07:46 +0000
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would be
>> added or renamed downstream (at least this will prevent new
>> violations).
> I ask them to consider to allow gentoo-*.pc files as an exception.

That's no good, because then when you fix reverse dependencies to use
gentoo-*.pc,
and then upstream accepts the *.pc, you'll have to refix all of the
packages all over again

Using foobar.pc directly is perfectly fine, long as there is an effort
to upstreamize it

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1298 bytes --]

On Fri, 09 May 2014 21:10:01 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 09/05/14 18:29, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > I ask them to consider to allow gentoo-*.pc files as an exception.
> 
> That's no good, because then when you fix reverse dependencies to use
> gentoo-*.pc,
> and then upstream accepts the *.pc, you'll have to refix all of the
> packages all over again
> 
> Using foobar.pc directly is perfectly fine, long as there is an effort
> to upstreamize it

It's a valid point; true, it would need fixes, on the other hand
reverse dependencies need to be tested anyway so it's not a problem.

Some eclass function that warns would be nice; a fallback from one
implementation to the other might also help, where it tries to use an
upstream file and if it doesn't exist fall back to the Gentoo file.

It's quite easy to do a tree wide grep to find what hasn't migrated
yet; even better, you could grep all Gentoo specific pkgconfig files:

    grep -r --include=*.ebuild --include=*.eclass \
        'gentoo-[somevalidcharactershere]*.pc' ${PORTDIR}

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files (was: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014)

[Matti Bickel]

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

On 05/09/2014 04:07 PM, hasufell wrote:
> I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would
> be added or renamed downstream (at least this will prevent new
> violations).

I want to repeat my stance from the linked bug that making this a
policy or calling on council to add more weight to existing devmanual
bits is adding red tape that from my point of view decreases the
quality of Gentoo. Asking me to remove the pkg-config file for lua-5.2
or removing the modifications to 5.1 will kill support for packages
depending on these files existing.

As long as there's stuff expecting the file to be around, I have a
hard time committing a "fix" that will increase the breakage in the tree.

Let me be clear: once packagers of lua using apps tell me they no
longer need the .pc file for their stuff to work, I'll remove it
promptly or switch to the reduced version you get from calling "make
pc" for lua-5.2.

However, all the linked bugs and commits seem to address the point
that debian *renames* the lua .pc files. You seam to take particular
issue with slotting lua (which requires us to rename them as well).

I'm on the record saying that I don't like this solution. However,
I've made it clear (and the eselect-lua module implements this) that
there's always a lua.pc, liblua.so, etc of the user's chosing. It's
also the only thing we got to resolve the stalemate of lua users
lagging behind releases. If you have better ideas, please let me know.

Since this is a technical matter, please direct further discussion to
the gentoo-dev ML.

Cheers, Matti
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=JnYK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----