* Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC
2017-12-10 7:25 ` Brian Dolbec
@ 2017-12-10 7:54 ` Alice Ferrazzi
2017-12-10 8:17 ` Hans de Graaff
2017-12-10 8:29 ` Michał Górny
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alice Ferrazzi @ 2017-12-10 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo Project mailinglist
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:21:57 +0000
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> > 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
>> > --------------------------------
>> > Full-tree verification using Manifest files
>> The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the previous
>> month's version.
>>
>> > 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?
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Also:
>
> 1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1]
> -----------------------------------------
> Anything that can be done?
>
>
> 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.
>
> I will be able to have it run on amd64, x86 and arm64 arches with the
> equipment I have. Plus I have had others say they could help with
> additional arches such as an armv7 cluster. So, this should also help
> with keywording demand.
>
>
>
We are working on a similar thing for Kernel packages.
You can take reference from this:
https://github.com/gentoo/Gentoo_kernelCI
Buildbot:
http://kernel1.amd64.dev.gentoo.org:8010
>
>
> --
> Brian Dolbec <dolsen>
>
--
Thanks,
Alice Ferrazzi
Gentoo Kernel Project Leader
Gentoo Foundation Board Member
Mail: Alice Ferrazzi <alicef@gentoo.org>
PGP: 2E4E 0856 461C 0585 1336 F496 5621 A6B2 8638 781A
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC
2017-12-10 7:25 ` Brian Dolbec
2017-12-10 7:54 ` Alice Ferrazzi
@ 2017-12-10 8:17 ` Hans de Graaff
2017-12-10 8:29 ` Michał Górny
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hans de Graaff @ 2017-12-10 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 617 bytes --]
On Sat, 2017-12-09 at 23:25 -0800, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> 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.
https://github.com/gentoo/ruby-tinderbox may have some useful ideas or
serve as an example. Unfortunately it currently isn't running because
the Docker integration turned out to be quite fiddly and I never took
the time to track this down further and fix things.
Hans
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC
2017-12-10 7:25 ` Brian Dolbec
2017-12-10 7:54 ` Alice Ferrazzi
2017-12-10 8:17 ` Hans de Graaff
@ 2017-12-10 8:29 ` Michał Górny
2017-12-10 15:24 ` Brian Dolbec
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2017-12-10 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶25 -0800, użytkownik Brian Dolbec
napisał:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:21:57 +0000
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > > 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
> > > --------------------------------
> > > Full-tree verification using Manifest files
> >
> > The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the previous
> > month's version.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Also:
>
> 1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1]
> -----------------------------------------
> Anything that can be done?
>
>
> 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.
>
I hope you don't mean to bump packages without checking for changed
dependencies and other important build system changes.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC
2017-12-10 8:29 ` Michał Górny
@ 2017-12-10 15:24 ` Brian Dolbec
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Brian Dolbec @ 2017-12-10 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 09:29:18 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶25 -0800, użytkownik Brian Dolbec
> napisał:
> > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:21:57 +0000
> > "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel
> > > wrote:
> > > > 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
> > > > --------------------------------
> > > > Full-tree verification using Manifest files
> > >
> > > The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the
> > > previous month's version.
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > 1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1]
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Anything that can be done?
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> I hope you don't mean to bump packages without checking for changed
> dependencies and other important build system changes.
>
of course not, you should have read what I said completely. Especially
the last two sentences.
--
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread