Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:14:44 + (UTC) Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has any tracking been done on the tree as it currently exists such > that an estimate of the number of such bugs expected can be made? > Surely, while thinking about making a commitment to the statement > above, the number of bugs it's going to trigger is apropos. The only tracking that's done currently, and the only tracking we can really work out how to do, is "stuff that breaks with Paludis". And that doesn't get everything, because quite a few of the flukes in how Paludis behaves are similar to some of the flukes in how Portage behaves. Some things we can validate easily -- for example, we can check that depend strings parse using a strictly PMS-enforcing parser. But for weird quirks that make EAPI 0 so difficult to pin down, there's not much that can be done. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
"Stephen Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:29:14 +: > I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's > consideration: > > "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably close > approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. Given > this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a > timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft > standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or package > managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator or PMS to > resolve the differences. Has any tracking been done on the tree as it currently exists such that an estimate of the number of such bugs expected can be made? Surely, while thinking about making a commitment to the statement above, the number of bugs it's going to trigger is apropos. > "On the differences between EAPI 0 and EAPI 1, a much smaller topic, it > is complete and can stand as a full specification" > > Alternatively, what (specific) changes are required to PMS before such a > statement can be made? As an alternate, if there's not such a list, perhaps the proposal should suggest creating one, possibly by going ahead and filing those bugs, with an appropriate keyword and/or special assignee for the time being, such that we at least have an idea of the size of the job ahead, without them counting against package maintainers, etc, bug-count at this time. (They could still be CCed and/or initial assignee, but if the latter, they'd be free to reassign to the special assignee for the moment, if so desired.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:22:05 -0700: > I waste a lot of time digging through lists looking for requested agenda > items, and I could be spending it making Gentoo better instead. BTW, thanks for all the hard work you put into this thing. It does seem things re the council are coming together, and it appears a lot of it is your doing. I know /somebody's/ doing a lot of grunt work on this, and you're certainly the visible one. It does give one pause as to what sort of shape we/Gentoo might be in if you'd not stepped up and started beating things into shape, by shear force of will and effort devoted, it would seem. Others might talk, but someone had to actually step up and do something, and I'm glad "someone" did, so thanks, both to you and to anyone else playing a (rather less visible) hand in making it happen! =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
