From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD55138A69 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:12:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 483AEE0864; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:12:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5A64E085C for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:12:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (aftr-37-201-228-223.unity-media.net [37.201.228.223]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA5E1340B7B for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:12:18 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5528F375.30009@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 12:12:05 +0200 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Status update of Sunrise project? References: <5526CB7F.2050302@gentoo.org> <5527F6D7.7010404@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 095cf645-58d7-4e6d-9ba7-8798d6f54595 X-Archives-Hash: 248dc4459a653ee8996f50eb74863be2 On 04/11/2015 07:38 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 11 April 2015 at 00:14, Thomas Sachau wrote: >> Ben de Groot schrieb: >>> I know the difference. But the two projects have similar goals: review >>> user submitted ebuilds, and commit them to an central repo to make >>> them available to a wider public. I think it would be good to get more >>> packages from sunrise into the main gentoo repo. >>> >>> Are there reasons for some of those packages to be kept out of the main repo? >> >> I think, the main reason is the required amount of developer time needed >> for that move and the continued maintainence of the moved packages. >> >> Sunrise has the advantage, that the packages per dev ratio is higher >> then for packages proxied in the main tree as the user does all the work >> (prepare, test, commit and update the ebuilds), the devs do just a >> review of the ebuild itself during the first commit or for bigger >> changes, so less time per packages required. > > Since you said you are the only remaining active developer on Sunrise, > and the proxy-maintainers team has quite a few more, and we now have > git pull requests for the main repo, I don't think that reason is > quite so important anymore. > > Of course you are free to continue with Sunrise, but in my opinion the > first port of call for user contributions should be proxy-maintainers. > It is better to include useful packages in the main repo, don't you > agree? > Although you didn't ask me I don't agree, because the statement is too broad. Unless gentoo workflow gets fixed (not just by replacing the VCS)... importing something into the tree often slows down contribution activity and also version bumps, unless... you _use_ that package yourself. Proxy-maintainers do not solve that problem. Neither does sunrise. I have used both workflows and contributed to both and ended up running my own overlays or contributing to major overlays, because that's currently the best solution. And a lot of projects do that too and I'd like to encourage other projects (e.g. office) to try it as well.