Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Alice Ferrazzi <alicef@gentoo.org>]

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