[gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Andreas K. Hüttel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

Hi all, 

taking over on Michal's request, here is latest version of the "2020 in 
retrospect" post. 

https://gist.github.com/akhuettel/a5ffcce70f3b3152fc9d654b696bbbe7

The first paragraph (above "Gentoo in numbers") will be the text visible on 
the main www.g.o. page.

Let's publish this sometime on the weekend; in the meantime, feedback and more 
suggestions for content are welcome.

Please keep in mind that here we want to mainly show off **user-visible** 
news.

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Joonas Niilola]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2041 bytes --]



On 1/14/21 12:45 AM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote:
> Hi all, 
>
> taking over on Michal's request, here is latest version of the "2020 in 
> retrospect" post. 
>
> https://gist.github.com/akhuettel/a5ffcce70f3b3152fc9d654b696bbbe7
>
> The first paragraph (above "Gentoo in numbers") will be the text visible on 
> the main www.g.o. page.
>
> Let's publish this sometime on the weekend; in the meantime, feedback and more 
> suggestions for content are welcome.
>
> Please keep in mind that here we want to mainly show off **user-visible** 
> news.
>
> Cheers, 
> Andreas
>
------
2020 featured almost 25500 bugs reported, compared to 15000 in 2019. ...
The total number of bugs closed in 2020 was 23500, compared to 15000 in
2019.
------

15000 created and closed bugs in 2019 seems suspicious. Could that
number be verified? I see even in 2020 the numbers are very close to
each other. But just in case.


------
packages.gentoo.org The packages website has received a lot of
improvements towards being a central source of information on Gentoo
packages. It now shows the results of QA checks, bugs, pull requests
referencing a package, and a maintainer dashboard indicating
stabilization candidates and outdated versions (according to Repology).
------

I'd like to add somewhere that these new checks are fully uniquely
customizable via session (cookies?). For anyone wondering what I'm
talking about, check
  https://packages.gentoo.org/user/preferences
  https://packages.gentoo.org/user/preferences/packages


Then the last part... discontinued projects. I'd like to end this on a
happier note. Like moving the whole "Please note that we can describe
here only a few major items. We would like to thank all Gentoo
developers for their relentless everyday Gentoo work. While they are
often not recognized for this work, Gentoo could not exist without
them." part at the very end, and somehow disconnect it from
"Discontinued projects" via markdown. Just my opinion.

-- juippis



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Joonas Niilola]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 387 bytes --]



On 1/14/21 10:26 AM, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> ------
> I'd like to add somewhere that these new checks are fully uniquely
> customizable via session (cookies?). For anyone wondering what I'm
> talking about, check
>   https://packages.gentoo.org/user/preferences
>   https://packages.gentoo.org/user/preferences/packages
>
>
>
+ and parts of the UI itself.

-- juippis


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 10:26 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> 
> On 1/14/21 12:45 AM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote:
> > Hi all, 
> > 
> > taking over on Michal's request, here is latest version of the "2020 in 
> > retrospect" post. 
> > 
> > https://gist.github.com/akhuettel/a5ffcce70f3b3152fc9d654b696bbbe7
> > 
> > The first paragraph (above "Gentoo in numbers") will be the text visible on 
> > the main www.g.o. page.
> > 
> > Let's publish this sometime on the weekend; in the meantime, feedback and more 
> > suggestions for content are welcome.
> > 
> > Please keep in mind that here we want to mainly show off **user-visible** 
> > news.
> > 
> > Cheers, 
> > Andreas
> > 
> ------
> 2020 featured almost 25500 bugs reported, compared to 15000 in 2019. ...
> The total number of bugs closed in 2020 was 23500, compared to 15000 in
> 2019.
> ------
> 
> 15000 created and closed bugs in 2019 seems suspicious. Could that
> number be verified? I see even in 2020 the numbers are very close to
> each other. But just in case.

antarus grabbed these numbers using some magical SQL.  Note that I've
applied rounding to a multiple of 500.

> ------
> packages.gentoo.org The packages website has received a lot of
> improvements towards being a central source of information on Gentoo
> packages. It now shows the results of QA checks, bugs, pull requests
> referencing a package, and a maintainer dashboard indicating
> stabilization candidates and outdated versions (according to Repology).
> ------
> 
> I'd like to add somewhere that these new checks are fully uniquely
> customizable via session (cookies?). For anyone wondering what I'm
> talking about, check
>   https://packages.gentoo.org/user/preferences
>   https://packages.gentoo.org/user/preferences/packages
> 
> 
> Then the last part... discontinued projects. I'd like to end this on a
> happier note. Like moving the whole "Please note that we can describe
> here only a few major items. We would like to thank all Gentoo
> developers for their relentless everyday Gentoo work. While they are
> often not recognized for this work, Gentoo could not exist without
> them." part at the very end, and somehow disconnect it from
> "Discontinued projects" via markdown. Just my opinion.
> 
> 

Yeah, I've indicated that we'd use some summary, and certainly it would
make sense to make that a part of it.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 649 bytes --]

>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> ------
> 2020 featured almost 25500 bugs reported, compared to 15000 in 2019. ...
> The total number of bugs closed in 2020 was 23500, compared to 15000 in
> 2019.
> ------

> 15000 created and closed bugs in 2019 seems suspicious. Could that
> number be verified? I see even in 2020 the numbers are very close to
> each other. But just in case.

IIUC this doesn't imply that all 15000 closed bugs had been filed
in 2019. So there wouldn't be anything wrong even if the "closed" number
was higher than the "created" number.

I wonder however, why not use the exact numbers if we have them?

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Andreas K. Hüttel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1361 bytes --]

> ------
> packages.gentoo.org The packages website has received a lot of
> improvements towards being a central source of information on Gentoo
> packages. It now shows the results of QA checks, bugs, pull requests
> referencing a package, and a maintainer dashboard indicating
> stabilization candidates and outdated versions (according to Repology).
> ------
> 
> I'd like to add somewhere that these new checks are fully uniquely
> customizable via session (cookies?). For anyone wondering what I'm
> talking about, check
>   https://packages.gentoo.org/user/preferences
>   https://packages.gentoo.org/user/preferences/packages
>

Added!


> Then the last part... discontinued projects. I'd like to end this on a
> happier note. Like moving the whole "Please note that we can describe
> here only a few major items. We would like to thank all Gentoo
> developers for their relentless everyday Gentoo work. While they are
> often not recognized for this work, Gentoo could not exist without
> them." part at the very end, and somehow disconnect it from
> "Discontinued projects" via markdown. Just my opinion.

Good idea, I've moved the thanks paragraph to the end and expanded it a little 
bit.



-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 515 bytes --]

>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, Andreas K Hüttel wrote:

> - **Architectures: Alpha and IA64 keywords were reduced to ~arch (i.e. unstable/testing only).
>   HPPA stable keywords were limited to the most important
>   packages only.  SH support was removed entirely.**

Maybe "SuperH" instead of "SH" here?

>   With very small number
>   of users of these architectures, our arch teams decided that
>   the effort in maintaining them is too great.  In case of SuperH,
>   our last available hardware died.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Aisha Tammy]

On 1/14/21 6:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, Andreas K Hüttel wrote:
> 
>> - **Architectures: Alpha and IA64 keywords were reduced to ~arch (i.e. unstable/testing only).
>>   HPPA stable keywords were limited to the most important
>>   packages only.  SH support was removed entirely.**
> 
> Maybe "SuperH" instead of "SH" here?
> 
>>   With very small number
>>   of users of these architectures, our arch teams decided that
>>   the effort in maintaining them is too great.  In case of SuperH,
>>   our last available hardware died.

I think that is a nice idea. 
I was super confused about what this was.

Cheers,
Aisha

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Andreas K. Hüttel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2021, 13:52:30 EET schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> >>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, Andreas K Hüttel wrote:
> > - **Architectures: Alpha and IA64 keywords were reduced to ~arch (i.e.
> > unstable/testing only).> 
> >   HPPA stable keywords were limited to the most important
> >   packages only.  SH support was removed entirely.**
> 
> Maybe "SuperH" instead of "SH" here?
> 

I've now written "SH (SuperH)" to keep both keyword and usual name, similar to 
ARM64 (AArch64)...

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] 'Gentoo in 2020', next round

[Andreas K. Hüttel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 278 bytes --]

> 
> taking over on Michal's request, here is latest version of the "2020 in
> retrospect" post.
> 

The post is online on www.gentoo.org now.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]