On Sunday 25 June 2006 19:46, George Shapovalov wrote: > First, thanks to everybody who responded! (not that tehre were many ;)). > Interestingly, the most positive result so far seems to be two people > expressing interest to join :), so we need at least one more mentor I'd > say..
Sorry about not responding until now - really busy in real life. I am currently in the thesis write up and job hunting stage of my PhD with three months of funding left - so my Gentoo time may well be fairly limited during the next few months. I will do what I can as and when though. > > I'll start by refreshing general changes that were proposed: > > 1. Make Scientific Gentoo a top-level and create subprojects > - this did not seem to get any complaints. So, when we are done with the > mainpart I'll try to update the page, like move it to a proper location, > redo the blurb and provide links to subprojects. Then I'll ask > corresponding teams to produce some descriptions for the corresponding > subprojects (its the same .xml essentially, just change the description > paraagraph). But lets first get done with the reorg itself.. This sounds good to me. I think this will certainly be a positive move for the work done with scientific applications in Gentoo. > > 2. Create smaller, topical herds to split 316 packages we have under sci > right now. > - Looks like most people assumed a natural herding of packages by > categories (of course sci-libs should not be a separate herd, packages > under it should fall under whatever makes sense), so lets try to start by > creating a layout that follows. Here are the categories, as they stand now: > > Further is based on a quick glance at ChangeLog's (since I did not get much > responce from actual mainatiners ;), so I may have missed somebody/listed > somebody extra. Please check and comment accordingly) Commented in your tracker bug on my involvement - all sounds quite reasonable to me. Although I would hate to dilute down too much and end up with one developer herds as they are not very productive in general. > > There were talks about creating sci-physics category, however I cannot find > traces of that atm (or was it on irc?). If there really are apps for > sci-physics it can start combined with sci-astronomy (or not, need a list > of packages..) I would go either way - crystallography and structural packages are also quite physicsy depending upon your perspective... > > Any comments on the structure? Also, while sci-xxx is a "natural" name for > the category (considering our present layout) it is somewhat cumbersome for > the herd. I guess sci- part may be dropped, then, should the rest stay > spelled out or people would prefere shortcuts, like math for mathematics, > etc? I would personally favour dropping the sci- and going for shortened names such as maths/math, geo. If there is a great deal of opposition I don't think it matters too much though. Back to work anyway... I am usually around on IRC too if anyone wants to chat about this stuff. It is a manic week this week though, so may be not so much. Thanks, Marcus
pgp52LZ1tJwy0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
