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 827F0138334 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:44:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A6444E09A1; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 62179E099F for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [91.246.99.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bircoph) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAA2C335CF2 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:43:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 00:43:53 +0300 From: Andrew Savchenko To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GURU v2, now with reviewed layer Message-Id: <20190206004353.513a4274d50f7df678b52bd8@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <071bc84b-ef20-e0aa-15db-bb0a07397785@gentoo.org> References: <1549301931.893.35.camel@gentoo.org> <20190205194133.2e78aee8fc4825c2d9439eba@gentoo.org> <071bc84b-ef20-e0aa-15db-bb0a07397785@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; i686-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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA512"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__6_Feb_2019_00_43_53_+0300_tHv8lnP9oGA0HaO_" X-Archives-Salt: a17f8239-c538-4e6d-984e-bff2a94c7ea4 X-Archives-Hash: c867b36c8bd0959832cc967c84058af2 --Signature=_Wed__6_Feb_2019_00_43_53_+0300_tHv8lnP9oGA0HaO_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:06:28 -0500 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 2019-02-05 11:41 a.m., Andrew Savchenko wrote: [...] > > How is it different from the sunrise overlay? We had very similar > > unreviewed/reviewed split model there. And you buried that project > > yourself ~2.5 years ago because it was stinking already. > >=20 > > Furthermore such project will distort already thin resources from > > proxy maint and GH PR reviewers. > >=20 > > So I see no practical point in resurrecting sunrise under another > > name and a slightly different policy. So please NO. > >=20 > > Best regards, > > Andrew Savchenko > >=20 >=20 > The primary difference I see between this new proposal and Sunrise is > that it isn't going to hinge on what ended up being a single gentoo > developer handling all of the publishing reviews, and there won't be a > review-before-initial-commit either. >=20 > I'm not sure if it will pull away from proxy-maint or GH PR's either, > but rather re-focus those two projects to allowing user-contributions > to existing gentoo-repo packages while this new project will be for > new packages. If anything I think it may reduce the effort necessary > to keep up with those projects since new packages won't need to be > maintained there.* >=20 > Whether or not these differences are sufficient to empower us to make > this repo, I don't know -- Sunrise was started back when overlays were > few and not nearly as simple to create. The idea of having everyone > commit to one place rather than each having their own could be better > in theory, but if users prefer to just run their own like they do now > then this project's going to be a bit of a waste... Frankly, that's what I'm expecting based on sunrise experience. =20 > * we could very well have an issue, just like we did with Sunrise, > where a dev moving the package to gentoo repo and 'taking over' from > the users that previously 'owned' it in GURU ends up causing some > conflict. I don't recall if policy was ever sorted on that since iirc > we can have the same issue with proxy-maint too? No, we don't have similar problem with proxy-maint. Proxied maintainers are considered on par with regular developers when we are talking about touching other people stuff: that is, a developer can't touch package owned by proxied maintainer if he's not his proxy or if there is no prior agreement with proxied maintainer, or if a timeout was not reached for proxied maintainer reply. Another great difference is that both GH PR's and PM are improving the official Gentoo repository while proposed GURU repo will be a separate project. And since it is a separate project, any developer (or proxy maintainer) will be free to add whatever they want from GURU to the main Gentoo tree. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko --Signature=_Wed__6_Feb_2019_00_43_53_+0300_tHv8lnP9oGA0HaO_ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE63ZIHsdeM+1XgNer9lNaM7oe5I0FAlxaA5kACgkQ9lNaM7oe 5I1OLw/9HQZuvMQgSNzdknEo5n4IAWIVXoGjV2m/0OKZ7LvbQM0lQxYjJMPJ3EQF RsXPACPVdKX8Xq4JSOzG+gbD/hMy0zI5mGgWlfkMFNXVvcMJIp7Rqo6cmNfoJvzd vbc23CKbZn0Ind1KwVA25RfSOOzyAkKVdkQTEIMVf5KdWXLMTXpUDHfo60dPlLT+ b1li0uBcy3ycnxGAUWeLHXKHNotsV00mmcX3526bhzr0pbd8If6TQUNboZcPHhrc HzpV2ztDtA9gSJUPrJzyFdIvhxAjht+SJW6PfYi7cZyJhhzvsWPRgCGg4AtzXRmu 8DHK3IjONvyeSZutaTy/qKoZxTINoP6ecPV07iuAos5rB6BTcUYPOZrVjxKXexNF qF0+azDYuCa75RMD+RiZaS2wOuPkhpGh3qVku9zPJ0Ke4T8+mqzIKxZJQ3muFjzb qpgpI2i35i7WgYcHFkZ6miDpVuLTsiYnBfjfc1L+u3aXFpmq+JJogRFr/gnNBSS7 htO89YWPPoYnDqz+3wxxH3lnq6K4sagyi/tqsLwZxkCI+FmBJjK5fZ05kBB3jq6L GpzwjBL6WBFzTPxx6WrD9bdvvWsbqtj6VqCZksZe1jlXk3jY+RacJGKc+D942dny nmLe9IL0BIifBOXHd1kuFFPnryb32bSeaJ9sFtXRzbXVeCg1YKg= =fQHe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__6_Feb_2019_00_43_53_+0300_tHv8lnP9oGA0HaO_--