On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbh...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> <jmbsvice...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> (c) has irked enough developers and users that people pushed council to
>> update the policy about the use of ChangeLogs.
>
>
> Yes, and I'm surprised that these same developers pushed towards a
> negative solution (kick productive people out) rather than a positive
> solution (move to git).

Getting developers to follow policy and common sense is a people
problem.  Git won't fix that - at best it might help with this
particular issue but not the next 14 that will come up.

I'd highly recommend listening to Donnie's "Assholes are killing your
project" talk.  I think we've come a long way from some of the
problems in the past.  I think that speaking up on lists when you
don't like a policy is healthy for the distro.  However, until policy
is changed it must be followed - especially for something as trivial
as this.

The second-to-last thing I want to see is productive developers
quitting Gentoo over policy frustrations.  The last thing I want to
see is a culture where anybody just does whatever they want to.  Such
a culture turns off far more potential future developers than it keeps
around.  Gentoo is already a very hands-off distro - just about any
dev can do just about whatever they want to improve things and we all
tend to go along with it as long as they're making a positive
contribution.  OpenRC is stable, some people are talking about getting
systemd working and others swear that they'll never run it, others
spend time making Gentoo work on everything from Win32 to BSD to
Plan9, and others look to improve the hardened/selinux experience.
The number of rules that I'd consider "restrictive" in Gentoo is very
small compared to more top-down organizations - we all do what we want
and the users get to choose with some basic safeguards to preserve the
mainstream experience.  There really is no reason to pitch a fit over
the few rules we have in the big scheme of things.

Rich

Reply via email to