On Friday 24 March 2006 10:41, Andres Loeh wrote:
> At the moment, Haskell is only a herd and a team, not a project.
Then stand up my brother! perl wasn't so different, so we snuck in a project
page. no one said anything. i'm going with we're a project to govern the
direction and maintenance of
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 08:37:24PM +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Friday 24 March 2006 20:18, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I really can't think of much besides kernel + toolchain that can have
> > such devastating effects to the rest of the tree. The only other
> > massive breakages would be via
On Friday 24 March 2006 16:41, Andres Loeh wrote:
> At the moment, Haskell is only a herd and a team, not a project. But this
> is certainly something that can be addressed, should it be necessary to
> change that.
In my regards you are a project, just not one that has a project page.
Paul
--
P
On Friday 24 March 2006 20:18, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I really can't think of much besides kernel + toolchain that can have
> such devastating effects to the rest of the tree. The only other
> massive breakages would be via eclasses, which was my main target.
glibc is a good candidate. And po
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:47 -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Mar 24 2006, 08:55:30AM EST]
> > As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay
> > can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo
> > infrastructure) that it does n
On 3/24/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, try to keep this technical discussion technical and leave your
> personal biases out of it.
It's not meant as a personal critisism of Ciaran. Ciaran's being very
helpful in this thread. It just happens that it was his post that
cre
Dňa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:15:37 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal:
> Yeah, and the point is? It happens every day, there are already tons
> of third-party overlays used by Gentoo users, but once this thread
> about "official" overlays started, you came here to tell us "wow,
> this all will
On 3/24/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At least in my mind the overlays should be developmental overlays; not
> for public comsumption. This doesn't mean "don't tell anyone about it
> so that no one shows up." It means "interested users will probably
> inquire about helping out, etc
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:16:15 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | We get innundated with tons of bogus bug reports every day, overlays
> | or not - see the number of invalid/duplicate bugs flowing every days.
> | We got a couple of bugs in last two a three days ba
On 3/24/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm really uncomfortable with QA intervening anywhere. It would be far
> nicer if the appropriate developers ensured that they weren't breaking
> anything.
+1
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 12:46 +0100, Andres Loeh wrote:
> As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay
> can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo
> infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that
>
> On 3/24/06, Andres Loeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a list of things that I think are essential or highly helpful to
> > our working process:
> >
> > * We should be allowed to continue using darcs for our version management.
> > If that's not possible on Gentoo infra, we should be allo
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:16:15 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| We get innundated with tons of bogus bug reports every day, overlays
| or not - see the number of invalid/duplicate bugs flowing every days.
| We got a couple of bugs in last two a three days basically stating
| "ZOMG, glibc
> > > If the overlay's changelog is included on o.g.o's front-page, and the
> > > wiki / GuideXML site is publically readable, but we just disallow
> > > anonymous access to the overlay itself (only if requested, this
> > > wouldn't be the default setup) ... how would that work for you?
> >
> > It
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:59 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>
>>>It is a Gentoo problem, because Gentoo gets innundated with bogus bug
>>>reports when users screw up their systems in weird ways and don't
>>>realise the cause.
>>
>>Convince me that this is something more than
Hi Andres,
On 3/24/06, Andres Loeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a list of things that I think are essential or highly helpful to
> our working process:
>
> * We should be allowed to continue using darcs for our version management.
> If that's not possible on Gentoo infra, we should be allo
Stuart,
I like the idea of overlays but your email here is completely bogus.
Ciaran just explained why overlays are a Gentoo problem, rebutting
Jakub's assertion that there's no need for policies. I don't see any
agenda here, so either you're pulling in external context, or you're
reading into it
Hi Chris,
On 3/24/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay
> can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo
> infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that
> are not in th
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Mar 24 2006, 08:55:30AM EST]
> As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay
> can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo
> infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that
> are not in the overla
On Friday 24 March 2006 14:55, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> My main point is I don't want one of my tree packages to break because
> some ricer told some n00b to use some crazy ebuild from some random
> overlay that isn't really fit for the general masses. If we take at
> least *some* measures to pre
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 12:46 +0100, Andres Loeh wrote:
> > If the overlay's changelog is included on o.g.o's front-page, and the
> > wiki / GuideXML site is publically readable, but we just disallow
> > anonymous access to the overlay itself (only if requested, this
> > wouldn't be the default setup
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:16 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> As this should be a separate thread, just one reason or example - I'm
> really uncomfortable e.g. w/ QA intervening in overlays stuff,
> considering the current way QA is being done in Gentoo... Current
> non-interactivity policy has clearly inf
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:59 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > It is a Gentoo problem, because Gentoo gets innundated with bogus bug
> > reports when users screw up their systems in weird ways and don't
> > realise the cause.
>
> Convince me that this is something more than just a power play, and
>
Hi Stuart.
> > dcoutts has described the current practice we use in the Haskell
> > team, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only practice
> > that would work for us. I can imagine that if we can come up with
> > reasonable policies for o.g.o, we can switch to a slightly different
> >
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:57:07 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Sounds like a perfect way to break lots and lots of systems. Those
> | > policies are mostly there for good reason.
> |
> | You want to apply policies on overlays? Well no - sorry, overlays are
>
> It is a Gentoo problem, because Gentoo gets innundated with bogus bug
> reports when users screw up their systems in weird ways and don't
> realise the cause.
Convince me that this is something more than just a power play, and
I'll work with you. But that's the hurdle you'll need to overcome
fi
Hi Andres,
On 3/23/06, Andres Loeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dcoutts has described the current practice we use in the Haskell
> team, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only practice
> that would work for us. I can imagine that if we can come up with
> reasonable policies for o.g.o
On Thursday 23 March 2006 22:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > I can only assume that other developers have similar overlays too.
> > These overlays form actually a wealth of resources that are hidden
> > away. If there were a semi-public overlay system in which developers
> >
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:57:07 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Sounds like a perfect way to break lots and lots of systems. Those
| > policies are mostly there for good reason.
|
| You want to apply policies on overlays? Well no - sorry, overlays are
| none of QA's or any other policy
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Thu Mar 23 2006, 09:41:25AM EST]
> On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 10:09 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > Reduced responsibility for package QA (I expect "we don't care about
> > overlays" to become a standard response on bugs.g.o)
>
> You will *definitely* get this from develop
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Wed Mar 22 2006, 12:33:10PM EST]
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:03:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we
> | were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for easy
> | merging.
>
>
On Thursday 23 March 2006 19:55, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> I agree. I would ask, what are the advantages of overlays that
> developers find so compelling that they use them rather than the
> portage tree? Would it not be a better idea to find a way to bring
> those advantages to the tree, rather th
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I can only assume that other developers have similar overlays too. These
> overlays form actually a wealth of resources that are hidden away. If there
> were a semi-public overlay system in which developers could keep their
> overlays, this might help in getting this out
On Thursday 23 March 2006 16:31, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> No. It isn't. Look in many developer overlays and you'll see packages
> that they have made that work how *they* want them to, even if it is
> *very* different from what is in the tree. This is the case for
> packages that are not mainta
On Thursday 23 March 2006 15:54, Eric Edgar wrote:
> I personally think this is a bad idea. I can understand and support
> links to different overlay repositories, however I do not think that
> gentoo should host or support overlays on its own infrastructure. For
> one thing supporting overlays o
> As said above, how are you going to get new contributors without people
> that are actually using/testing that stuff?
We find the via Bugzilla and/or irc and point them at the overlay.
That way, we more or less know who's using the overlay and make sure
they are briefed a bit before they start u
Duncan Coutts wrote:
> The way the Haskell team manages this is that we don't tell our end
> users about our testing overlay. So we don't get bug reports from them.
> We have three outside contributers with write access to the overlay
> repo. They make changes in consultation with the team. So we'
On 3/23/06, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is not what Stuart said, he indicated that overlays would be treated as
> supported systems including the use of our bugzilla system to track defects.
> If that is the case it crosses the line into the land of the "official" in
> which cas
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 18:55 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 23/03/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:40 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > If the software a user wants is in an overlay, then the user will be
> > > forced to install the overlay.
> >
>
On 3/23/06, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't have it both ways, either they are wholey Unofficial and do not get
> tracked in bugzilla at all (something which would have to be made VERY clear
> to our users, e.g. a you use it you get to keep the pieces policy, and the
> develope
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 13:55 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I am not OK with just standing by and watching us give
> complete access to do anything with no accountability. If you are,
> perhaps you really need to rethink your commitment to our users and your
> fellow developers.
On Thursday 23 March 2006 13:57, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:31:24 +0100 "Stefan Schweizer"
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | What about if we just skip your "policies" and let the overlays be a
> > | free place where people can handle issues how they
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 19:31 +0100, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> On 3/23/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Think about it this way, what if we had two competing products in the
> > tree that do the same thing, with the same file names? We would add a
> > blocker, no? So what mechani
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:31:24 +0100 "Stefan Schweizer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | What about if we just skip your "policies" and let the overlays be a
> | free place where people can handle issues how they think it is right
> | for the specific case and not how $super_
On 23/03/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:40 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > If the software a user wants is in an overlay, then the user will be
> > forced to install the overlay.
>
> It shouldn't be in the overlay, is I think the point many are trying
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:31:24 +0100 "Stefan Schweizer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| What about if we just skip your "policies" and let the overlays be a
| free place where people can handle issues how they think it is right
| for the specific case and not how $super_dev said somewhere. That is
| wha
On 3/23/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Think about it this way, what if we had two competing products in the
> tree that do the same thing, with the same file names? We would add a
> blocker, no? So what mechanism is there to ensure that there's no
> "blocking" issues between a
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:40 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 23/03/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:41 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > > Your nightmare scenario seems unavoidable. Enabling per-overlay bug
> > > tracking doesn't stop users posting bug
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 15:51 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 3/23/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I see no problem with providing these sorts of overlays to
> > bridge the gap between contributing users and developers. I *do* see a
> > problem with simply allowing random overl
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I wouldn't mind seeing an actual "unstable" designation added to
> KEYWORDS. The basic premise would be like package.mask packages where
> things can be done *within the tree* but still has the same air of "this
> might be totally busted at some point" as overlays. Users
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> Another thing that some people may not have considered - with many
> developers using various permutations of overlays, how can you
> guarantee that what is being checked into the main tree will build for
> a normal user? In order to test that, a developer would have to
>
On 23/03/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:41 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Your nightmare scenario seems unavoidable. Enabling per-overlay bug
> > tracking doesn't stop users posting bugs in bugzilla. It just causes
> > confusion for users, because the
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:31:40 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your nightmare scenario seems unavoidable. Enabling per-overlay bug
> > tracking doesn't stop users posting bugs in bugzilla. It just
> > causes confusion for users, because they're not sure where to go.
> > Norma
On 3/23/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see no problem with providing these sorts of overlays to
> bridge the gap between contributing users and developers. I *do* see a
> problem with simply allowing random overlays from any developer for
> anything.
That's a reasonable point
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:41 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 3/23/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If some random developer goes out there and creates his own fork of
> > catalyst in his overlay, I sure don't want to receive a *single* bug on
> > it. Ever.
>
> Y
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 22:03 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>> To answer Daniel's other question, about bugs.g.o ... trac on
>> overlays.g.o will have its bug tracking system disabled. We already
>> have one bug tracking system - bugs.g.o - and that's sufficient.
>
> Umm...
I personally think this is a bad idea. I can understand and support
links to different overlay repositories, however I do not think that
gentoo should host or support overlays on its own infrastructure. For
one thing supporting overlays on our infrastructure looks like we are
supporting broken eb
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 10:09 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> Reduced responsibility for package QA (I expect "we don't care about
> overlays" to become a standard response on bugs.g.o)
You will *definitely* get this from developers that won't be using the
overlays.
Let's just say you decide to u
Hi Chris,
On 3/23/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If some random developer goes out there and creates his own fork of
> catalyst in his overlay, I sure don't want to receive a *single* bug on
> it. Ever.
Your nightmare scenario seems unavoidable. Enabling per-overlay bug
track
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 22:03 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> To answer Daniel's other question, about bugs.g.o ... trac on
> overlays.g.o will have its bug tracking system disabled. We already
> have one bug tracking system - bugs.g.o - and that's sufficient.
Umm... no?
If some random developer go
Hi Chris,
On 3/23/06, Chris Bainbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Developers are using overlays, however, the majority of users aren't.
True. But does that have to be the audience for overlays?
> If the usage of overlays is to increase, then remote overlay support
> should be added to emerge.
On 23/03/06, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Developers are already using overlays, and some teams (including ones
> I've been involved in) are actively and successfully using them to
> help with recruitment and to provide a way to access ebuilds that
> would otherwise still be rotting
> But it seems rather artificial to me, and I suspect some devs might
> enjoy contributions to their non-topical overlays.
It *is* artificial; that's fair critisism. I have a personal bias
towards projects. I'll withdraw the distinction.
So, to be clear: the owners of an overlay (the leads for
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> The confusion is probably because, in the original vision statement, I
> said that these things would only happen for overlays setup by, and
> for, official projects. I wanted a disctinction between who could
> commit to overlays run by projects, and who could commit to ove
Hi Donnie,
On 3/23/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think I'm understanding your intent here, because I've read
> things two different ways. My main goal is to allow easy contribution by
> non-devs, via allowing them to commit directly to some overlay. How is
> that possibl
Hi Chris,
On 3/23/06, Chris Bainbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that the
> use of overlays is more a symptom of a problem with portage. Overlay
> problems:
[snip]
Developers are already using overlays, and some teams (including ones
I've been involved in) are actively and successfull
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 3/23/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Stuart Herbert wrote:
>>> Developer overlays would only be created for active Gentoo developers,
>>> and they would be accountable for its contents. Non-developers will
>>> not be given write access to developer over
Hi Luis,
On 3/23/06, Luis Medinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with the wiki because it seems to be an easy way to users and
> developers comunicate together and work. Like i said a few months ago
> the documentation won't give any problems to GDP since GDP provides high
> level docs. The
On 23/03/06, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The vision I have for overlays.g.o is one official home for all Gentoo
> > > overlays run by projects and by individual Gentoo devs. I see the
> > Also for Arch/Herd Testers?
The discussion seems to have moved from the original "how can
On 3/23/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Developer overlays would only be created for active Gentoo developers,
> > and they would be accountable for its contents. Non-developers will
> > not be given write access to developer overlays.
>
> This removes mu
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Developer overlays would only be created for active Gentoo developers,
> and they would be accountable for its contents. Non-developers will
> not be given write access to developer overlays.
This removes much of the motivation for merging overlays to o.g.o, at
least some
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 22:03 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I'd like to offer two wiki engines and two version control systems on
> overlays.g.o. I believe that gives us enough choice without us
> loading the box with too much software for us to keep on top of.
>
> One thing that was never planned
Hi Danny,
On 3/23/06, Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> I'd like to comment on some of your plans for overlays.g.o.
:)
> > The vision I have for overlays.g.o is one official home for all Gentoo
> > overlays run by projects and by individual Gentoo devs. I see the
> Also
Hi Stuart,
I'd like to comment on some of your plans for overlays.g.o.
Am Mittwoch, 22. März 2006 23:03 schrieb Stuart Herbert:
> It's probably the right time for me to flesh out what I've been
> planning for overlays.g.o.
>
> The vision I have for overlays.g.o is one official home for all Gentoo
(re-sending as I sent from the wrong account)
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 19:42 +0100, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> On 3/22/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we
> > were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for
> This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we
> were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for easy merging.
>
> Donnie
It's probably the right time for me to flesh out what I've been
planning for overlays.g.o.
The vision I have for overlays.g.o is one offici
On 3/22/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we
> were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for easy merging.
I think it should be all in a central place possibly saved with
GPG-Keys that need to be signed
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:03 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > I've been very happy with using svn+trac overlays to bridge this gap.
> > They provide a sandbox for contributions to be shared and evaluated.
> > They provide a place where I've been able to give commit access
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:03:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we
| were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for easy
| merging.
Word of warning to anyone planning to implement one of these that
inclu
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 12:03, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > I've been very happy with using svn+trac overlays to bridge this gap.
> > They provide a sandbox for contributions to be shared and evaluated.
> > They provide a place where I've been able to give commit access to
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I've been very happy with using svn+trac overlays to bridge this gap.
> They provide a sandbox for contributions to be shared and evaluated.
> They provide a place where I've been able to give commit access to
> non-devs, so that they can learn the ropes w/out threatening
81 matches
Mail list logo
