Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:03:37 +0100 Ed W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| As an "outsider" reading that summary the message *I* read is that
| there is some strain over fitting the development model into
| "stable", "~", and "package.mask". I think I see people basically
| saying that they have differing views over what qualifies for each
| level?
The system basically works. The problems are:
* It's not always used correctly.
* It's not entirely understood by some users.
* Some users think it should be easier to unmask a group of related
packages.
Might there be an option 4 which is that a slightly different system
might stop everyone bitching over the current one and hence avoid
wasting some time? Nope, no idea what that would be, but the thought
does occur when you see some time being wasted on trivial issues...
| Also, as someone who has submitted a few patches and some ebuilds and
| then seen nothing happen to them and my offers to act as maintainer
| have gone unresponded I also wonder if there is some way to make
| better use of casual contributors like me? (I'm not bitter, it's just
| that I feel I could contribute more, but don't know how to?)
The problem is... Getting someone ready to be able to commit to the
main tree is expensive in terms of existing developer time. The
solution isn't lowering the standards for commit access, because that
just leads to even more wasted developer time. There's the two tier
system that gets proposed every now and again, but that would a)
require svn rather than cvs and b) require that certain people who
currently have main tree access be moved to branch access only.
A bigger tree is all well and good, but the tree we have right now is
only half maintained...
Is there any possibility that easier low quality contribution makes the
high quality contributions easier?
Look at wikipedia - it's amazing that such high quality work (in
general) can come from lightly peer review material with low barriers to
entry.
Clearly not an appropriate model here, but I can't help wondering if
there is not another way...
I did read the FAQ here and I take your point though:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm/docs/mw-faq/maintainer.txt
Thanks for listening
Ed W
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
