All,
As some of you may have seen, over the past couple months I've been
serving as a proxy-maintainer on a number of packages for a fair few
proxy-committeers through what I've been calling C1phers Adopt a Package
Program [1]. So far, I would consider it to be a success. A fair few
packages have been adopted (over 15 at this point IIRC). There are a
couple problems with this existing in the way that it does however.
1) I am the sole point of contact for all of these packages.
2) It is not really "official". A blog post that some people have seen
doesn't really attract a ton of users to get involved. (Though it's done
better than I would have guessed).
3) As it grows, it becomes a fair bit of work for the one guy involved
(me) =P.
Now, I know there are a fair few packages in the tree that have other
proxy-maintainers. (I'm too lazy to get a real number, so sue me.) So
here is what I think would be a good idea to do.
Create a formal Gentoo project with its own herd and alias. Whenever a
packages has a proxy-maintainer, instead of having 2 maintainer entries
(one for the user, one for the dev), have the users contact information,
and put the package in the herd associated with the project. (Say
proxy-maintained with the alias proxy-maintained@g.o.) From there, users
that want to have something committed can use the alias, and any dev
that's helping with that project can review it quickly and commit it for
them. Or if they so choose, they can add themselves to the metadata in
addition to the herd and it will be left to them as long as they get to
it in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise someone else can step in
and help out.
I think this serves a fair few purposes. First off, I would imagine it
will take a pretty decent dent out of our growing count of m-n packages.
It makes life easier for the proxy-maintainers and their committers. It
allows users who want to proxy-maintain something to find the group of
people who will help out rather than having to put a call out on the
mailing lists. And, it will mean that users involved in the project can
get some recognition on the project page.
I do realize there is a small amount of overlap with the already
existent Sunrise package, however, given that usually Sunrise serves as
a home for m-w packages, I think this can help fill the gap left for the
m-n packages. (And help provide a logical transition from Sunrise to
Portage).
Well, that about covers it. What does everyone think? Good idea? Bad
idea? Waste of time? Are you crazy? Let's hear it!
- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
All,
As some of you may have seen, over the past couple months I've been
serving as a proxy-maintainer on a number of packages for a fair few
proxy-committeers through what I've been calling C1phers Adopt a Package
Program [1]. So far, I would consider it to be a success. A fair few
packages have been adopted (over 15 at this point IIRC). There are a
couple problems with this existing in the way that it does however.
1) I am the sole point of contact for all of these packages.
2) It is not really "official". A blog post that some people have seen
doesn't really attract a ton of users to get involved. (Though it's done
better than I would have guessed).
3) As it grows, it becomes a fair bit of work for the one guy involved
(me) =P.
Now, I know there are a fair few packages in the tree that have other
proxy-maintainers. (I'm too lazy to get a real number, so sue me.) So
here is what I think would be a good idea to do.
Create a formal Gentoo project with its own herd and alias. Whenever a
packages has a proxy-maintainer, instead of having 2 maintainer entries
(one for the user, one for the dev), have the users contact information,
and put the package in the herd associated with the project. (Say
proxy-maintained with the alias proxy-maintained@g.o.) From there, users
that want to have something committed can use the alias, and any dev
that's helping with that project can review it quickly and commit it for
them. Or if they so choose, they can add themselves to the metadata in
addition to the herd and it will be left to them as long as they get to
it in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise someone else can step in
and help out.
I think this serves a fair few purposes. First off, I would imagine it
will take a pretty decent dent out of our growing count of m-n packages.
It makes life easier for the proxy-maintainers and their committers. It
allows users who want to proxy-maintain something to find the group of
people who will help out rather than having to put a call out on the
mailing lists. And, it will mean that users involved in the project can
get some recognition on the project page.
I do realize there is a small amount of overlap with the already
existent Sunrise package, however, given that usually Sunrise serves as
a home for m-w packages, I think this can help fill the gap left for the
m-n packages. (And help provide a logical transition from Sunrise to
Portage).
Well, that about covers it. What does everyone think? Good idea? Bad
idea? Waste of time? Are you crazy? Let's hear it!
- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
> - gpg control packet
> All,
> [..]
> Thanks!
>
> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>
Hi Dane,
I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
understand why that effort did not succeed
> Create a formal Gentoo project with its own herd and alias. Whenever a
> packages has a proxy-maintainer, instead of having 2 maintainer entries
> (one for the user, one for the dev), have the users contact information,
> and put the package in the herd associated with the project. (Say
> proxy-maintained with the alias proxy-maintained@g.o.) From there, users
> that want to have something committed can use the alias, and any dev
> that's helping with that project can review it quickly and commit it for
> them.
Good idea!
> I do realize there is a small amount of overlap with the already
> existent Sunrise package, however, given that usually Sunrise serves as
> a home for m-w packages, I think this can help fill the gap left for the
> m-n packages. (And help provide a logical transition from Sunrise to
> Portage).
Given the rather, err, stringent (for lack of a better word) quality control on sunrise, whoever has been committing to sunrise regularly should have no problem in getting his ebuilds into this program as well. It's just an additional way to "graduate"...
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, arm, tex
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
06-22-2011, 03:47 PM
Christoph Mende
RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program
On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
> > - gpg control packet
> > All,
> > [..]
> > Thanks!
> >
> > [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
> >
> Hi Dane,
>
> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
> understand why that effort did not succeed
>
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
there were other concerns.
06-22-2011, 04:18 PM
Markos Chandras
RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 22/06/2011 06:47 μμ, Christoph Mende wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>> - gpg control packet
>>> All,
>>> [..]
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>
>> Hi Dane,
>>
>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>
>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
package so users can step up and maintain a package
> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
> there were other concerns.
The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
(assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 19:18 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 22/06/2011 06:47 μμ, Christoph Mende wrote:
> > On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA512
> >>
> >> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
> >>> - gpg control packet
> >>> All,
> >>> [..]
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
> >>>
> >> Hi Dane,
> >>
> >> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
> >> understand why that effort did not succeed
> >>
> >> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
> >
> > I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
> > only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
> > problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
> > maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
> > to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
> > So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
> >
> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
> package so users can step up and maintain a package
Well yes, but with such a project users might notice the packages before
they're about to be removed. Also the important difference is that not
one Gentoo dev does the commits, but many - whoever reads the
mail/ticket/bug/whatever first.
> > Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
> > there were other concerns.
>
> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
Guess I'm proposing something different then.
06-22-2011, 04:30 PM
Dane Smith
RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote:
>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>
>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>>> - gpg control packet
>>>> All,
>>>> [..]
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>>
>>> Hi Dane,
>>>
>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>>
>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
> package so users can step up and maintain a package
>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
>> there were other concerns.
>
> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages.
That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the
primary goal of this "new" project.
- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
On 22/06/2011 07:30 μμ, Dane Smith wrote:
> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote:
>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>>
>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>>>> - gpg control packet
>>>>> All,
>>>>> [..]
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Dane,
>>>>
>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
>> package so users can step up and maintain a package
>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
>>> there were other concerns.
>
>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
>
>
> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages.
> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the
> primary goal of this "new" project.
>
If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to
treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty
much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so
I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We
might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended
goals if needed
On 06/22/11 12:41, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 07:30 ¼¼, Dane Smith wrote:
>> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote:
>>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>>>>> - gpg control packet
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Dane,
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
>>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
>>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
>>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
>>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
>>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
>>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
>>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
>>> package so users can step up and maintain a package
>>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
>>>> there were other concerns.
>
>>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
>>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
>>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
>>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
>
>
>> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages.
>> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the
>> primary goal of this "new" project.
>
> If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to
> treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty
> much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so
> I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We
> might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended
> goals if needed
>
> [1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml
That's a good idea. It would help reduce the number of packages that
have to get 'treecleaned' and it would have the added benefit that it
might attract some much needed help to that project.
Short version: I'm all for that.
- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program
