Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting Tuesday, November 15th, 20:00 UTC
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 17:30 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > The November Gentoo Council meeting will be held on #gentoo-council next > week, Tuesday, November 15th, 20:00 UTC, presided by Seemant Kulleen. > > The deadline for submitting items for the meeting agenda is set to > Sunday, November 13th, 20:00 UTC. Just want to be sure that GLEP41 is on the list. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Linux Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting Tuesday, November 15th, 20:00 UTC
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 14:29 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Homer Parker wrote: [Fri Nov 11 2005, 08:09:11PM CST] > > Just want to be sure that GLEP41 is on the list. > > GLEP 41 was rejected by the council at the last meeting, pending a > rewrite that addressed the issues brought up at that meeting: > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20051013.txt > > According to CVS, the GLEP hasn't been updated since the last meeting, > so I'm assuming that the GLEP's authors aren't ready yet. > > -g2boojum- I uploaded it the end of last week. Looks to be updated on the web site. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting Tuesday, November 15th, 20:00 UTC
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 18:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:02:43 -0600 Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | I uploaded it the end of last week. Looks to be updated on > | the web site. > > Hrm, but you didn't post it to -dev for discussion? If you wish, here it is. Made the changes the council asked for is all. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] GLEP: 41 Title: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff Version: $Revision: 1.3 $ Last-Modified: $Date: 2005/11/11 18:42:27 $ Author: Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 7-Sep-2005 Post-History: 15-Sep-2005 Abstract Arch Testers should be treated as official Gentoo staff. Motivation == Since Mike Doty (kingtaco) created an Arch Tester (AT) project in January 2005 to reduce the developer's load and the amount of open keywording bugs for the amd64 porting team, many users have volunteered to become ATs. They are doing a fair share of everyday's work to keep the amd64 and ppc trees up to date. While they spent many hours and even had to pass the staff quiz, they are currently not recognized as official members of Gentoo. Specification = ATs should basically be treated as staff. This includes the following changes to the current situation: - Get a @(subdomain_to_be_determined).gentoo.org email address. The email address will just be an alias, and will be forwarded to their @gentoo.org address if they go on to become a Gentoo developer. - Get read-only access to the gentoo-x86 repository. This doesn't have to be individual accounts, a single account, without a shell, with all of their keys will be sufficiant. There will be a 30 day probationary/mentoring period for new ATs.The lead AT/HT for arch/herd will be responsible for the mentoring period. If arch/herd doesn't have a Lead AT/HT, then either the arch/herd lead or the Strategic AT Lead will be responsible. The Lead AT is a seasoned developer that watches for talent, recruits and mentors ATs. Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to a minimum of two weeks if an AT wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for at least two weeks. The amd64 porting team has handled situations like this for a while and only made positive experiences. Also, the idea of an arch tester as a trustworthy user who is able to test critical changes (such as hard masked software branches), could be expanded to other herds. These 'ATs' wouldn't be called arch testers as the 'arch' is irritating, instead, herd tester (HT) could be used. As arch testers (and herd testers) become official staff, they should be handled by DevRel. Since ATs don't want to have to handle the big 'communication overhead' normally, they won't be subscribed to the gentoo-core mailing list and won't be able to vote. Backwards Compatibility === All current active arch testers should be migrated. Copyright = This document has been placed in the public domain.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting Tuesday, November 15th, 20:00 UTC
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 13:06 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > Sending it out a day before the meeting isn't exactly a good thing. > I'd > rather wait to look through those details instead of getting them a > day > before they vote on them. I got busy and forgot to post it to the list. If it needs to wait till next month, so be it. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Email subdomain
Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out: @staff.g.o @assist.g.o Thoughts, better ideas appreciated. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Linux Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote: > This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it > going > to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For > instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev. That's what the GLEP says will happen ;) -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Linux Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote: > There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it > doesn't > provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants > to > know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the > web > site. I'm guessing you didn't read the logs from the council meeting where it got stipulated that this be done. [1] I also apologize (again) for it hitting the list the day before it was to be voted on, and stated that it could wait if need be. Council seemed to be pleased with it enough to allow it to pass. [1] <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20051013.txt> /me wanders off in search of his flameproof suit -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Linux Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates
On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 22:31 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote: > Point of Clarity, > > > and the ``mysql-5`` database format changes. > > These changes actually occured in mysql 4.1, not mysql-5 > > > * The sender's first name ends in 'an', and they are not me. Um, your first name ends in 'an' so your reply is immaterial -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Linux Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Patrick Mclean
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 11:21 -0600, Mike Doty wrote: > > Please take a moment to welcome our newest developer, chutzpah. > Patrick > joins us to help the sound and AMD64 herds. Congratz Patrick! -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 21:06 -0600, Mikey wrote: > Solutions? And how many have you tested and submitted patches for? Instead of just complaining, be proactive and help with the problem you perceive is there. If it's a viable solution, it'll probably be at least discussed. Then there's a matter of the manpower to maintain said solution. One of the reasons of going to stage3 as the only supported method is the ingenious ways users break their systems from stage1, and the overhead of dealing with bogus bugs. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Linux Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Chris Parrott
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 11:16 -0500, Mike Doty wrote: > Chris has move from various AT projects to a developer. cparrot was > fist on the amd64 AT project, then he moved on to other arches and > some > other hards. It's my great pleasure to have him as a gentoo > developer. /me sheds a tear.. Congrats Chris! -- Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Some support for Sunrise Overlay :-)
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 11:45 +, Duncan wrote:
> That in fact is a big reason I never
> moved on becoming a Gentoo/amd64 AT, as well, since when I asked,
> they
> were doing most communication thru IRC, and that just doesn't work
> well
> for me.
It's just that it's quicker and easier to get responses via IRC if
you're there.. There's ATs that don't hang out in IRC and still follow
bugzie and do their testing.
> I'm sure I'm not alone. FWIW and from my observation, generally,
> younger
> folks tend to take to IM/IRC like my generation, at least the geeks
> in
> it, tend to take to newsgroups/lists. I'll be 42 in January.
There's quite a few of us older types in IRC, it's not just for kids ;)
--
Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 17:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Then there are ebuilds that don't call eautoreconf, in the first > > place. Should we require that all of them inherit autotools now, > just > > for the unlikely case that user patches could be applied? > > If the aim is to provide a working feature to users, yes. The > alternative is to not provide user patches support. Damnit, let the user shoot themself in the foot but let them learn from it. Remember back in the day when you had no clue? You learned from it. You can only protect them so much. If they want to use custom patches then they need to learn how. -- Homer Parker signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was > done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really > thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work... No, but paved the way for other distros as they had nothing even close. I'm sure you remember back then. Don't be an ass. -- Homer Parker signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 09:24 +0200, justin wrote: > Won't it be a good thing, if you instead of showing all of us, that > you > can tell where people fail to present something in the right way, help > and guide them to write the necessary things like PMS patches, GLEPs > etc., so that we can proceed in an efficient way? That's not his style. Never has been, and I don't see that changing. -- Homer Parker signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:11:27 -0500 > Homer Parker wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was > > > done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really > > > thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work... > > > > No, but paved the way for other distros as they had nothing > > even close. I'm sure you remember back then. Don't be an ass. > > And what did Gentoo get out of it? > > What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing > things until things worked, and ending up not knowing what most of > those changes were or why they were done. The end result is that > there's still a random smattering of multilib-related mess cluttering > up ebuild internals that doesn't actually do anything except cause > intermittent breakages. Doing experiments is great as a way of > understanding the problem, but it isn't how you deliver a solution. > That takes a lot more work, and someone has to be prepared to do it. > The hell? Other distos where still thinking of how to implement multilib and we had it. I know first hand as I trashed a system trying out the latest-n-greatest.. And the next round fixed it. The -emul packages from then on along with the multilib profiles have worked fine. Again, quit being an ass. Oh, and what I remember is.. You didn't contribute. There was kingtaco, lv, and kuglafang . So you're clear there, you didn't have a damn thing to do with it. -- Homer Parker signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:25 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:04:41 -0500 > Homer Parker wrote: > > Damnit, let the user shoot themself in the foot but let them > > learn from it. Remember back in the day when you had no clue? You > > learned from it. You can only protect them so much. If they want to > > use custom patches then they need to learn how. > > That's not the issue. The issue is advertising a user patches feature > when there's no way for the user to know up-front whether or not their > patches will be applied. This whole discussion started because user > patches are currently randomly ignored sometimes. > I guess I missed it's not a global feature, sorry. That said, everything else stands. -- Homer Parker signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 14:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:13:50 -0500 > Homer Parker wrote: > > > And what did Gentoo get out of it? > > > > > > What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing > > > things until things worked, and ending up not knowing what most of > > > those changes were or why they were done. In the beginning there was a method... > The end result is that > > > there's still a random smattering of multilib-related mess > > > cluttering up ebuild internals that doesn't actually do anything > > > except cause intermittent breakages. Doing experiments is great as > > > a way of understanding the problem, but it isn't how you deliver a > > > solution. That takes a lot more work, and someone has to be > > > prepared to do it. > > > > The hell? Other distos where still thinking of how to > > implement multilib and we had it. I know first hand as I trashed a > > system trying out the latest-n-greatest.. And the next round fixed > > it. The -emul packages from then on along with the multilib profiles > > have worked fine. > > ...so why are people running around demanding that reinventing multilib > is the number one priority and has to be in EAPI 5 immediately then? I > was under the impression that your fellow developers don't consider the > -emul packages to be an adequate solution. If that isn't the case, and > the existing mechanism is in fact fine as you claim, then great, we can > ignore multilib from an EAPI perspective. And now it needs revamped.. I see no problem with re-investigating the problem to make it better/easier/whatever. > I can only go on what your colleagues are claiming here. I suggest if > you're upset at the suggestion that Gentoo doesn't have a decent > multilib implementation then you take it up with all the people who are > demanding the PMS team provide them with one. > I can only suggest you keep track of your train of thought.. In the beginning vs now are two completely separate issues. We were first, is it surprising the method needs looked at? No. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] A friendly reminder: Ciaran McCreesh is not a Gentoo dev
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 23:01 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Just a short note as it seems some confusion arises lately:
>
> Ciaran McCreesh is not a Gentoo dev and his words don't represent
> the position of Gentoo development team.
>
Amen.
--
Homer Parker
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge
On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 20:27 +0400, Igor wrote: > I know no server that is automatically updated with -uDNav @world > and works for more than 6 months. I would never auto-update.. That said, I installed this system in 2005. > I can't keep a single system functional with auto-updates for just 6 > months And that's why auto, unattended updates should never be used.. -- Homer Parker signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge
On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 21:26 +0400, Igor wrote: > Hello Homer, > > Friday, August 8, 2014, 8:40:20 PM, you wrote: > > >> I know no server that is automatically updated with -uDNav @world > >> and works for more than 6 months. > > > I would never auto-update.. That said, I installed this system in > > 2005. > > >> I can't keep a single system functional with auto-updates for just 6 > >> months > > > And that's why auto, unattended updates should never be used.. > > You're very brave saying it. > Cheers! > > No, I let the software do the work it's designed to do. Why would I fight it? -- Homer Parker signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Future developer
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 21:54 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I'm proud to announce the arival of a future developer. His name is
> "Tom". He
> arived last monday on 10:22 am (UTC+02). I and my wife will take care
> of
> mentoring him to full developership ;-).
Congratz!
--
Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Democracy: No silver bullet
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:14 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: > For the record, I was waiting for those folks to come to us to resolve > it. Last I knew we had a partial resolution with the parties involved, > but shortly after that they just stopped pursing it. I figured if it > was > that important to them, they'd get back with us. So I'm not sure what > happened to that exactly. If they weren't pursing it anymore, I didn't > see the point in us pursing it since they were the ones requesting > it. It is important, and still on my todo list. I'm still awaiting the anon-cvs/svn/whatever to be finished before taking on the next part. Not trying to reopen the whole can of worms at them moment, but.. As for partial resolution, the discussion degenerated to having those saying it would cause classes of devs vs those saying they aren't devs and shouldn't have @g.o addresses from what I remember. I'll have to go re-read the thread to be sure. -- Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Anonymous CVS and SVN now available
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 02:54 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Thanks go to: kengland, robbat2, kingtaco, ramereth, and > several others for helping this to happen. Thanks to all involved!! -- Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The long story behind our new developer: Peter Weller (welp)
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 14:59 +0100, Markus Ullmann wrote: > Now you know the story behind our new amd64/bugday/xfce dev from UK. I > think he deserves the usual happy welcome :) Congratz! -- Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start > > up a spec of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before > > it'd be an official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my > > head: > > - the main developers need to be Gentoo developers > > - source code hosted on Gentoo infrastructure > > - compatible "emerge" and "ebuild" binaries > > As you know fine well, the Council has already rejected GLEP 49, which > says more or less that. As you also know fine well, those requirements > mean Gentoo will permanently be stuck with Portage (and when dreaming > up silly and biased requirements, bear in mind that Portage was at one > point close to being moved off Gentoo infrastructure because of the > huge > delays in setting up svn...). Wouldn't this be the same as all MTAs providing sendmail compatibility? Whereas existing tools still Just Work? -- Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > No, seriously. If this is holding us back, I'll do the commits > provided > I can find people to help me with testing. This is for the very short > term. I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and > never intend on purchasing. I'm running it on my laptop with a 9600/9700 Mobility (it has an identity crisis I guess)... Works fine after applying the patch.. -- Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer Truedfx
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 19:37 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Harald,
>
> Welcome aboard!
> > The name's van DÄk, without a C!
> Nono, you're mistaken. It's "van Dyk" :-P
Nonono, we can only handle one!! ;)
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Herbie Hopkins (Herbs)
On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 16:17 +0100, Tom Martin wrote: > Gentoo/AMD64 is swelling ever more as another developer joins the > ranks. > His name is Herbie Hopkins and he IRCs as Herbs. Congratz Herbie!! -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] net-irc/xchat-xsys: Test request for ~x86 & ~amd64
On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 12:33 +0100, Tony Vroon wrote: > Could any xchat-xsys users that are not afraid of using an experimental > patch unmask version 1.9.3 with /etc/portage/package.unmask and see if > the /video output gives you the right information. > If I get 10 reports that it works, I'll unmask it and unleash it on ~x86 > and ~amd64. Works ok here.. cpu[1 x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ @ 798MHz w/ 1024 KB L2 Cache] [EMAIL PROTECTED], Linux 2.6.11-gentoo-r3 x86_64] snd_card[0: ICH - SiS SI7012] uname[Linux laptop 2.6.11-gentoo-r3 #1 Sun Apr 3 21:39:47 CDT 2005 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux] vid_card[ATI Technologies Inc RV350 [Mobility Radeon 9600 M10] @ 1280x800x24bpp] -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: dang
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 00:57 -0500, Jason Huebel wrote: > It's with pleasure that I announce a new developer: Dang. Dang has been > working as an "Arch Tester" for AMD64 for a while now and has proven himself > to be an asset to the team. So we felt it would be good to officially make > him a developer. He'll be helping with amd64 bug squashing of course, along > with helping out the gnome herd. > > Welcome dang! > /me needs to recruit more ATs... But, that's ok.. Congratz Dan!!! -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Pinboard of outdated ports
On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 14:44 -0600, R Hill wrote: > > What we really need is to have the AT program extended from just > amd64 > > to every arch, including x86 (which desperately needs an arch team). > > Really? What does such a team do? Glad you asked ;) <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml> -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] New AT
It is with great please I announce the newest Arch Tester, and the first non-AMD64 AT. Johannes Traub (_bambam on IRC), has become the first PPC AT. Please give him a warm welcome to the team. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New AT
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 19:03 -0700, Duncan wrote: > (I'm studying to go AT myself, but just another amd64 AT, nothing > special > like _bambam, and not yet... I get to enjoy a few more weeks of > freedom > first. ) Weeks?!?!?! ;) -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] New AT
It seems the PPC peeps have done it again, it's with great pleasure that I announce their newest AT, nixnut. Please give him a warm welcome to the team. I know JoseJX said he had plenty of work for him, so he might be hard to find ;) -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New AT
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 01:54 -0400, Joseph Jezak wrote: > > Now that I have "minions" (note the plural), it's time to take over > the > world! MUAHAHA. lol > Congrats nixnut, and thanks hparker! :) No problem.. just don't work them /too/ hard ;) -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugday Improvements
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 19:35 -0700, Scott Shawcroft wrote: > What bottlenecks exist in closing bugs? Testing and time.. We have found on the amd64 team (and I hope ppc has found the same) that ATs have been very helpful with testing, which allows the devs to do other things. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Operational Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 Architecture Team
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 23:11 +0100, Ian Leitch wrote: > Interested users may also show interest, I think tester and hparker > are > interested in possibly recruiting a few able fellows. I'd be more then happy to help get some ATs going to assist the devs.. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 09:18 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Notice that for almost > everything, amd64 is barely behind x86...just a minor version > number/revision or two at most. That's the ATs hard at work keeping us current ;) -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 14:40 -0600, Joshua Baergen wrote: > A possible way to alleviate this is proactivity on the maintainer's > part. Our current rule for going testing->stable is 30 days. If we > could alert the arch teams x number of days in advance they could > test > it before the end of the period minimizing delays. Since all arch > teams > would need this alert a relevant script could be created/modified. That's where having some devs/ATs running stable, and others running testing really helps.. That and chroots for core packages going from package.masked to testing. It's worked well for amd64 that way. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 01:12 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > 6) I notice the amd64 team requre their arch testers to >take the ebuild quiz; I think this is a bit harsh, as >arch testers are regular users without commit access to >CVS etc. A simpler quiz targetted at ensuring the arch >testers know what is expected of them would lower the >bar and should encourage more users to join in. Using >the ebuild quiz means you get people who quickly become >devs in their own right... Just until we get finished with the AT quiz, which is working out to be more QA/troubleshooting oriented. The ebuid.quiz was handy, and is a good way to check if the prospect has at least read the docs enough to get the questions answered. It also helps ensure they really want it, rather then having a high turnover rate. The ppc ATs took the test as well, which I reviewed, and gave pointers where there was a problem. JoseJX seems to have liked the help he's gotten so far from them. As for making dev.. hehe.. Yeah, it's a start, and there for awhile we had like 2 ATs because they'd all made dev ;) It does give you a pool of dev prospects as well, which works out nicely. Several of the amd64 ATs submit patches with their bug reports which helps the devs out as well. We now have several ATs that have no interest in making dev, content with helping out as an AT. Got a little longer then I wanted, but wanted to give a decent explanation of our experiences so far. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] PPC gets more help
The ppc team has found a new minion^W AT to help them out. Matti Bickel (mabi) has stepped up for abuse from JoseJX.. Please welcome him to the team! JoseJX, don't work him to hard! j/k, Where's the whip? ;) -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:13 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? > It > reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs." That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a while now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches him about becoming a dev. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > I guess what I'm *really* asking is > whether this GLEP is necessary? There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the ATs recognized as an official part of the team. As I said in my other post, we have several ATs that don't want to become devs, time constraints, etc, keep them from making that commitment. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become > official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many > stuck around but didn't do much? This page has a list of all of the amd64 ATs, and current status: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml?part=1&chap=1 Most are fairly active. Of the active ATs, I'd say 60-70%. or more, are active daily. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:57 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > > If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges > than some devs get even? What would that be? -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
>
> As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
> rest
> stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February,
> the
> youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.
And ppc has 3-4.
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 17:46 -0400, Joseph Jezak wrote: > We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far. Of those, 1 has become a > dev. W00t! Time to do some more recruiting, eh? ;) -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > > Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more > privileges > at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers > for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them > commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is > supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP > goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the > arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. Some people don't want to be a dev. Some people can't commit the resources to maintain dev status. There's a lot more responsibility in being a dev then an AT, and some people don't want that. So, becoming an AT is a way they can contribute without having to worry about all the extra responsibilities involved with being a dev. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:34 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned > developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit > access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask > for it and take any requisite quizzes. ATs will be read only, we've never asked for cvs write access for them. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people > involved. > > Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from > reading > the GLEP that they _don't_ currently have commit access and havent > taken any > quizzes)? How do they get their keywording work into the tree? They don't even have read only, which is all we want for them. They do nothing in the tree, mark bugs TESTED in bugzilla is about as close as they get. As for how they operate, here's the docs covering them: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [Summary] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 15:55 +0900, Chris White wrote: > So basically, Simon wants arch testers to become official devs (with > limited > restrictions). They've taken the staff quiz already, and he wants > them to be > officially @gentoo.org-ified and _read only_ access to the portage > tree. If > they want read/write access they do the usual stuff to become a dev > and all > is happy. Minor clarification, they currently take the ebuild.quiz.. We're working on one more QA/testing related.. Which of course will go before everyone to be kicked around before implementing. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | voting previleges > > Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of > complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who > know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. I don't remember that being asked for... -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
