On Friday 24 March 2006 14:35, Grant Goodyear wrote: > After reading through that fairly lengthy thread, I'm afraid that I can > no longer tell exactly what is being proposed. Who has read access? > Who has write access? Bugs are handled where, and by whom? Are we > considering a fairly tightly controlled system, or a wild free-for-all? > Exactly which problem are we proposing to solve here? > > If someone could succinctly summarize the current schools of thought, > I'd be quite indebted. >
As I understand it...
o.g.o would be used to host developer and team based overlays that are owned
an operated by existing Gentoo devs. Users would not be able to create their
own overlays hosted on this system. The developer(s) who own the overlay
would be able to control the granularity of access ranging from developers
only, to developers plus a few trusted users, to full public ro access.
As far as I read it, who handles the bugs and by what means at this point is
still up in the air as there seem to be some groups that would rather handle
bugs through their own mechanisims, be that IRC, e-mail, trac whathaveyou and
those that would like to be able to track bugs through bugs.g.o.
There is also the question of limiting the number of 'false' bug reports based
uppon overlay usage, it seems that the best way to work through this is by
augmenting the output of emerge --info. Things like a list of overridden
eclasses in the output and the capability to add a package as an arguement to
emerge --info in order to see if it is coming from an overlay seem to be good
starting points.
On a less technical note there is also the question of using the o.g.o
frontpage as a means to point to existing repositiories of user created
overlays in order to promote them.
Hope that helps,
--
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpKBvrnkBVTM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
