From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C083139083 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 15:24:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E2B8E1083; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 15:24:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19512E0FFE for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 15:24:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from professor-x (d172-218-130-5.bchsia.telus.net [172.218.130.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dolsen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 193C533BF05 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 15:24:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:24:25 -0800 From: Brian Dolbec To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC Message-ID: <20171210072425.1548097b@professor-x> In-Reply-To: <1512894558.1612.11.camel@gentoo.org> References: <16099994.eYkbcOoAGA@pinacolada> <20171209230336.5dcee2e1@professor-x> <1512894558.1612.11.camel@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 4174a783-4f9e-408b-a7ed-ddd3df24d075 X-Archives-Hash: f2e7ef5fa2a8694f89994790d318c010 On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 09:29:18 +0100 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 23=E2=88=B625=E2=80=89-0800, u=C5=BCytk= ownik Brian Dolbec > napisa=C5=82: > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:21:57 +0000 > > "Robin H. Johnson" wrote: > > =20 > > > I did wish to participate re two items here, but regretfully I > > > will be travelling at the time, and it's unlikely that I will have > > > connectivity. > > >=20 > > > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel > > > wrote: =20 > > > > 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5] > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > Full-tree verification using Manifest files =20 > > >=20 > > > The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the > > > previous month's version. > > > =20 > > > > 4. Restricting gentoo-dev/-project posting [6] > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > * Restricting posting to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-project, > > > > while creating a gentoo-experts list? > > > > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official > > > > business there? > > > > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official > > > > business to a revived restricted gentoo-council list? > > > > * Moderating lists instead? =20 > > >=20 > > > I had not weighed in publicly on this before, but wish to make a > > > statement. > > > The original split of gentoo-dev to gentoo-project included > > > moderation of gentoo-dev, however that was never really > > > implemented, mostly for technical reasons, and a decreased need > > > after the split. > > >=20 > > > I oppose a further split of -dev/-project/-experts, and instead > > > propose better list policies of -dev. If it's technical, even > > > coming from an expert user, it probably belongs on -dev. If it's > > > about the organizational structures of Gentoo, it belongs on > > > -project. How do we keep the threads more on-topic? Moderation > > > maybe, but I'm not convinced that is best. > > >=20 > > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > > I second this. I too do not want to see the lists split even > > further. There are far too many interested and competent users in > > it that can and do contribute in some ways. There has to be a > > better solution. > >=20 > >=20 > > Also: > >=20 > > 1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1] > > ----------------------------------------- > > Anything that can be done? > >=20 > >=20 > > I am intending to set up a buildbot instance and develop some > > builder scripts for it to aid in regular package maintenance. It > > should be able to do basic version bumps and run the test suite, > > present it to the pkg maintainers for final Q/A and pushes to the > > tree. It should also be able to check/test on whatever arches that > > have a worker connected to it. So this should help take some of > > the pressure off the various arch teams. My first goal is for it > > to do many of the python pkgs I maintain to get the basic system up > > and running. Plus I should be able to leverage some of the > > g-sorcery/gs-pypi code. Once operational, it should be possible to > > add additional parsers to check for and update dependencies to add > > additional types of pkgs to its capabilities.=20 >=20 > I hope you don't mean to bump packages without checking for changed > dependencies and other important build system changes. >=20 of course not, you should have read what I said completely. Especially the last two sentences. --=20 Brian Dolbec