Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 April 2008
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:37:31 -0700 > "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That's why I setup them up with the ability to rsync it, and they >> never got back to me on that, nor used it ever. > > Hrm, curious. They seem interested and alive currently. Perhaps it's > worth another shot... I also queried them on the forum earlier this year, since none of my commits were listed. Here's the link (I do think this is worth looking into - note that the response what that they did not do CVS...): http://www.ohloh.net/forums/10/topics/1278 -Joe -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 April 2008
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 01:41:09AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:37:31 -0700 > "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's why I setup them up with the ability to rsync it, and they > > never got back to me on that, nor used it ever. > Hrm, curious. They seem interested and alive currently. Perhaps it's > worth another shot... Get Robin Lackey @ OhLoh to mail me again then. I'm busy the next week as I'm at the MySQL conference in Santa Clara, but it's just a matter of giving him the access details again. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpUrLXyLyaMP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 April 2008
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:37:31 -0700 "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's why I setup them up with the ability to rsync it, and they > never got back to me on that, nor used it ever. Hrm, curious. They seem interested and alive currently. Perhaps it's worth another shot... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 April 2008
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 01:28:43AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:21:20 -0700 > "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Having OhLoh would be nice, but over the course of the last year, > > they've found that their system is not really capable of handling the > > scope of the gentoo-x86 CVS tree. > As I understand it, they need a full history to start off. But once > they have that, it's just a case of pulling every commit, which they > should be able to handle. Jason Allen said today that a tarball of the > repo should probably be enough to get it working. That's why I setup them up with the ability to rsync it, and they never got back to me on that, nor used it ever. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpQ8uXZL7tE7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 April 2008
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:21:20 -0700 "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having OhLoh would be nice, but over the course of the last year, > they've found that their system is not really capable of handling the > scope of the gentoo-x86 CVS tree. As I understand it, they need a full history to start off. But once they have that, it's just a case of pulling every commit, which they should be able to handle. Jason Allen said today that a tarball of the repo should probably be enough to get it working. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 April 2008
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:50:52PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Ways to track commit stats of various sorts came up, such as cia.vc > and ohloh. cia seems to have too much downtime to rely on. ciaranm > talked with ohloh people already. ohloh would require some > modifications to ohcount to recognize ebuilds and eclasses, and a > full copy of the cvs repository to start, but it seems worth > exploring. Betelgeuse said he would tar up a copy of the gentoo-x86 > repo. Having OhLoh would be nice, but over the course of the last year, they've found that their system is not really capable of handling the scope of the gentoo-x86 CVS tree. Their system tries to get the full history every time, which is a design issue. See the constant failures here: http://www.ohloh.net/projects/gentoo/enlistments?query=gentoo-x86&sort=module_name&commit=Update I did get in touch with them a year ago: http://www.ohloh.net/forums/11/topics/183 This moved to private email, and I suggested some changes to how they were doing it, as well as telling them how to fetch the gentoo-x86 tree with rsync - but they (Robin Luckey) never got back to me beyond that. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpB1XI3PDkNy.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 April 2008
Hi all, Here is the summary from today's council meeting. The complete log will show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly. Thanks, Donnie Quick summary = GLEP 46 (Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml): Approved Slacker arches: Vapier's proposal is going out tonight. Minimal activity for ebuild devs: We're trusting the judgment of the undertakers. Also looking into Ohloh for commit stats. Initial comments on PMS: Unapproved EAPIs cannot go into the approved document. Roll call = (here, proxy [by whom] or slacker?) amnehere betelgeuse here dberkholz here flameeyes proxy [tsunam] lu_zero slacker vapier here jokey here Updates to last month's topics == http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20080313-summary.txt Document of being an active developer - Last month: No updates Updates: No updates Slacker arches -- 3 months ago: vapier will work on rich0's suggestion and repost it for discussion on -dev ML Last month: vapier said he was going to work on it this weekend. Updates: vapier said he's finishing it up and will have it posted tonight. GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0046.html 2 months ago: Caveat on approval about allowed protocols Updates: Restriction to http/https has been dropped as pointed out by council members (amne and Flameeyes if I'm right). The point for restricting the URLs to the mentioned protocols was that they shouldn't link to automatically updated ressources. This has been replaced by an explicit specification and a recommendation that http/http should be favoured over ftp/svn/gopher/etc to make the implementation for automated update discovery tools easier (they should of course ignore URLs they can't handle). Approved. New topics == Minimal activity for ebuild devs Current is 1 commit every 60 days. Should it be higher? Agreement was hard to find. Some people thought it should be 1 commit / week, others said that people have busy lives and questioned the benefits. A number of people did agree that we should trust the judgment of the undertakers. dberkholz suggested that low commit rates may not maintain the quality of the committer, and we should more carefully review the commits of these people. Ways to track commit stats of various sorts came up, such as cia.vc and ohloh. cia seems to have too much downtime to rely on. ciaranm talked with ohloh people already. ohloh would require some modifications to ohcount to recognize ebuilds and eclasses, and a full copy of the cvs repository to start, but it seems worth exploring. Betelgeuse said he would tar up a copy of the gentoo-x86 repo. Initial comments on PMS --- http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git Are there any major changes needed, or just tuning details? The council voted that kdebuild-1 and other unapproved EAPIs could not be in an approved PMS document. The spec isn't a place for proposals or things that will never be submitted for approval by the council. It's a specification, a reference of what is allowed in the main tree. Open floor -- blackace asked about complaints against philantrop, eroyf, and spb. vapier referred that to devrel. Betelgeuse said that there's been no rejection or action on those complaints yet, and internal discussion is ongoing. Philantrop complained that he hadn't heard anything about complaints, and Betelgeuse said that since some members already left, he didn't want to take matters into his own hands in sharing private information.