On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 09:17 +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:11:03AM +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > Dear users of the sci overlay, > > we've recently rearranged the git setup. The current sci setup is > > now > > exactly like the main tree setup, namely: > > > > 1. The authoritative repo is the one hosted by infra > > (git://anongit.gentoo.org/proj/sci.git) > > 2. All commits to the sci repo will be synced over to Github > > automatically, in ONE DIRECTION only. This means all the dual HEAD > > merging is obsolete now. > > 3. The Github repo is now meant as a (friendly) interface to > > potential > > contributors. > > 4. As a new QA policy, merge commits in the overlay are banned now. > > The > > sci overlay has much lower contention than the main repository, > > such > > that you can realistically always avoid merge commits, even for > > large > > batches of commits. This will require you to rebase your commits on > > top > > of remote: > > > > git pull --rebase=preserve > > > > I will likely further tighten the QA standards of the repository, > > due > > to a history of poor COMMITMSGs and other QA violations. This is > > supposed to be a testing ground for the main repo, where plans are > > to > > also introduce such QA measures. > > > > Furthermore, I am considering requiring full GPG-signed commits for > > the > > overlay, and for this I would like to get some input. I believe > > this > > prepares contributors for eventually joining Gentoo. For low-volume > > contributors not wanting to join, we can always merge pull requests > > from Github. Ideas? Are you opposed to this? > > I welcome all these changes. If we can help in educating people on > the > more tricky things, like signing with a GPG key, even better. I have > some ebuilds I use personally now that I will try to add in the next > few days to the overlay. > > That said, once we reach good enough quality of ebuilds in the > overlay, > we should start just moving them to the main tree. Gentoo is used by > quite a few physicists (myself included) and other scientists, so > eliminating the need for an extra overlay would be nice. I remember > having problems with things like blas/atlas and eselect due to > divergences with the main tree in not so distant past. Also, using > overlays with prefix is not always a seamless experience. > > I'm not saying the overlay should go away, but just be a staging area > for scientific packages before they land on the main tree. What are > your > thoughts on this? > > Cheers, > —Guilherme >
You're putting it much too lightly - in its current state, the overlay is a disaster. More often than not it contains awful ebuilds, awfully broken, and noone feels a responsibility to fix the mess. People keep adding broken ebuilds to it. So yes, people should stop adding broken stuff to it, and more importantly, should rather send in high-quality stuff directly to the main tree instead of using the overlay as a quasi-permanent dumping ground. David
