[gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
james posted on Tue, 06 Dec 2016 22:10:16 -0500 as excerpted: > Really, for someone like me, it is just best to avoid irc. FWIW, some 12 years ago now, in 2004, I started using gentoo, with the intent of contributing and potentially eventually becoming a dev. Somewhere along the line but rather early in the process, I read that IRC was absolutely required at least for the final interview, and given that I too strongly prefer email (or for group communications better yet newsgroups, with gmane being that bridge for most mailing lists), I decided my contributions, such as they are, can be better made either elsewhere, or to gentoo, but without becoming a dev. Put it this way. There's a lot of FLOSS projects out there hurting for devs, and if some of them throw up entirely artificial barriers that some have problems with to the direct repo contribution level when there are so many other options that don't, fine, it's their prerogative, but they obviously aren't hurting for devs as much as they might claim, if they have the luxury of throwing up such artificial barriers to filter some potential contributors out. Much later, likely after some recruiters project changes, someone from recruiters clarified that IRC on the final interview isn't actually /required/, there might be ways around it in individual cases. Apparently it does need to be real-time synchronous for some reason, but he suggested that a (VoIP?) phone call or the like could be arranged as an alternative. In theory I could do that. But by then, while I continued then and continue now to use gentoo as it really does seem the best and most flexible scripted build-it-yourself distro out there, my enthusiasm for becoming a dev had burned off due to finding it simply wasn't an option for so long, and given all the work involved, I decided I could simply remain as I was and as I have for now over a decade, a gentoo user and contributor on various lists, bugzilla, etc, as well as a generally non-coder contributor to a few selected upstreams. Now it seems to be IRC hard-required again. I do find it a bit ironic, tho, since literally generations of devs have come and gone since I started, always with the intent to contribute to the best of my ability, back in 2004. From my perspective, that's a lot of additional contributions missed in the decade-plus since then. Furthermore, I see little reason I'll not still be gentooing in another decade, even three, by which time I'd be turning 80 (I'm turning 50 in January), if both gentoo and I are still around by then. That's a lifetime of additional contributions from my perspective needlessly missed, but I guess they must not be so desperately needed after all, apparently because the quality of contributions from people that don't IRC are of significantly enough lower quality that it's simply not worth bothering to recruit those folks. -- 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: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto posted on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 15:36:20 + as excerpted: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > > >> I'm asking recuiters directly, but unless someone changed the rules and >> I was distracted, irc is not mandatory. > > I've got confirmation that nothing has changed, so irc is not mandatory. > I hope this clears any misunderstandings and puts an end to any > speculation. Thank you. =:^) -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Duncan wrote: james posted on Tue, 06 Dec 2016 22:10:16 -0500 as excerpted: Really, for someone like me, it is just best to avoid irc. FWIW, some 12 years ago now, in 2004, I started using gentoo, with the intent of contributing and potentially eventually becoming a dev. Somewhere along the line but rather early in the process, I read that IRC was absolutely required at least for the final interview, and given that I too strongly prefer email (or for group communications better yet newsgroups, with gmane being that bridge for most mailing lists), I decided my contributions, such as they are, can be better made either elsewhere, or to gentoo, but without becoming a dev. Much later, likely after some recruiters project changes, someone from recruiters clarified that IRC on the final interview isn't actually /required/, there might be ways around it in individual cases. Apparently it does need to be real-time synchronous for some reason, but he suggested that a (VoIP?) phone call or the like could be arranged as an alternative. In theory I could do that. Now it seems to be IRC hard-required again. I'm asking recuiters directly, but unless someone changed the rules and I was distracted, irc is not mandatory. More important than an irc review session though, we have several developers that rarely, if ever, do irc, so it's certainly possible to be a Gentoo Developer and not maintain a regular irc presence. To be clear, irc is a good a way to be part of the team and to quickly talk to others, so we should encourage its use. But encouraging something is not the same as making it mandatory. About not really wanting contribution and making up "barriers", the "barriers" we've put are in our view required to make sure people have a real interest in being in this community and know enough to be able to maintain packages (for those applying for ::gentoo access). Best regards, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto Gentoo Developer PS - Let's please move all this discussion to the project ml as this clearly doesn't belong in the gentoo-dev ml.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: I'm asking recuiters directly, but unless someone changed the rules and I was distracted, irc is not mandatory. I've got confirmation that nothing has changed, so irc is not mandatory. I hope this clears any misunderstandings and puts an end to any speculation. Best regards, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto Gentoo Developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On 12/07/2016 02:44 AM, Duncan wrote: james posted on Tue, 06 Dec 2016 22:10:16 -0500 as excerpted: Really, for someone like me, it is just best to avoid irc. FWIW, some 12 years ago now, in 2004, I started using gentoo, with the intent of contributing and potentially eventually becoming a dev. Somewhere along the line but rather early in the process, I read that IRC was absolutely required at least for the final interview, and given that I too strongly prefer email (or for group communications better yet newsgroups, with gmane being that bridge for most mailing lists), I decided my contributions, such as they are, can be better made either elsewhere, or to gentoo, but without becoming a dev. Put it this way. There's a lot of FLOSS projects out there hurting for devs, and if some of them throw up entirely artificial barriers that some have problems with to the direct repo contribution level when there are so many other options that don't, fine, it's their prerogative, but they obviously aren't hurting for devs as much as they might claim, if they have the luxury of throwing up such artificial barriers to filter some potential contributors out. Much later, likely after some recruiters project changes, someone from recruiters clarified that IRC on the final interview isn't actually /required/, there might be ways around it in individual cases. Apparently it does need to be real-time synchronous for some reason, but he suggested that a (VoIP?) phone call or the like could be arranged as an alternative. In theory I could do that. But by then, while I continued then and continue now to use gentoo as it really does seem the best and most flexible scripted build-it-yourself distro out there, my enthusiasm for becoming a dev had burned off due to finding it simply wasn't an option for so long, and given all the work involved, I decided I could simply remain as I was and as I have for now over a decade, a gentoo user and contributor on various lists, bugzilla, etc, as well as a generally non-coder contributor to a few selected upstreams. Now it seems to be IRC hard-required again. I do find it a bit ironic, tho, since literally generations of devs have come and gone since I started, always with the intent to contribute to the best of my ability, back in 2004. From my perspective, that's a lot of additional contributions missed in the decade-plus since then. Furthermore, I see little reason I'll not still be gentooing in another decade, even three, by which time I'd be turning 80 (I'm turning 50 in January), if both gentoo and I are still around by then. That's a lifetime of additional contributions from my perspective needlessly missed, but I guess they must not be so desperately needed after all, apparently because the quality of contributions from people that don't IRC are of significantly enough lower quality that it's simply not worth bothering to recruit those folks. I want to get the quizes done to the current version, mostly to prove I have the knowledge and work on my ebuild and bring them up to EAPI 6 or possible EAPI-7 (is it reasonably formulated yet?). Maybe I could just ask Duncan to grade those quizes; I certainly trust his judgment. I do not need to be a formalized as a gentoo dev. But with over a decade of gentoo experience, a bachelor in EE, a professional engineering registration and a Masters in CS (yes from an ABETT university), decades of coding, and I've had significant issue with the process, you'd think that this effort to become qualified as a gentoo dev, is maybe a bit too socially subjective and more of a cruel social filter to folks that they (then existing gentoo devs) just do not want in the clubhouse. Thanks Duncan for stating my case too. (Actually more eloquently that I ever could). If I've been rude or abusive, I apologize, but it's a very small fraction, at most, compared to the angst folks experience, as they look, covetously at the gentoo tree. Are there any shareable apples ? I also really like the Anna W. idea of using a GLEP to formalize methods to fork Gentoo, very straightforward and very easy. From an 'old fart's' gentoo distro, folks could even work on core codes (think bootstrap, profiles, compilers and such) and test their ideas before submitting ideas/ebuild to gentoo_irc_proper. Someone might just experiment for a replacement/enhancement to Bugzilla or such? I know that 'fork' scenario will work for me. In fact with a repo that is visible and usable via layman, folks could just try ebuilds or groups of ebuilds from a repo. Seems like we had this discussion, with another young coder on gentoo-dev less than a year ago? However, when I start pushing a 'bare-metal' provisioning systems, not dissimilar to CoreOS's 'ignition' then a separate gentoo-hack-distro would be very useful. My research (on bench-marking thousands of different clusters/codes) on identical hardware configurations, the installation has to b
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:15:06 -0500 james wrote: > Being able to use stage-4 or stage-5 (G. forums) installs to rapidly > provision a collection of bare-metal systems [BGO-593218] into a wide > variety of hardened clusters is my passion. Unikernels as stage 4 > packages can then very easily be targeted for very specific needs: VM > or container or bare-metal. Gentoo-proper is has too much political > baggage to encourage folks to innovate, imho. So, I really hope the > gentoo dev community gets behind the Anna Wilcox idea of streamlining > Gentoo into the most fork-able distro on the planet. WE could all be > one happy family and yet be very competitive with our ideas, trials > and published results? Surely a few eggheads (academcis/pedantics) > see the wisdom of competing micro_distros? Not unlike competing > micro_breweries, it make the entire craft much stronger and better > for all. > > > Then there can be peace and harmony as everybody can do exactly as > they please with their little cluster of gentoo and their very own > portage-tree. And then folks running gentoo-proper now can pick and > choose which innovations they want to include in the master tree. > Isn't that pretty much what Google and CoreOS do now, as well as the > gentoo derivative OS? Why not accelerate what has worked, for the > few, to emancipate those of us still chained into user-land servitude. As an ordinary user, this sounds pretty bad. Forking is great for developers, but bad for users. I don’t *want* 27 different Gentoo-derived fork distributions, each of which is great at one thing. I don’t want to have to reinstall a different OS just because I switch from writing embedded code to running Octave. Honestly, I don’t even want to go out and find other OS’s repos, add them as overlays, and hope the inter-OS dependencies work. As an ordinary user, what I *want*, is to install one OS and not think about it again. Ideally, Gentoo. When I want to do embedded development, I just emerge dev-embedded/thingy. When I want to do some math, I just emerge sci-mathematics/octave. Most things that most people care about in the main tree. Breaking things up into overlays or different OSs or whatever just means adding more hoops that I have to jump through before I can start working on a new topic. -- Christopher Head pgpa8a3bVCWvb.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/12/16 23:46, Christopher Head wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:15:06 -0500 james > wrote: > >> Gentoo-proper is has too much political baggage to encourage >> folks to innovate, imho. So, I really hope the gentoo dev >> community gets behind the Anna Wilcox idea of streamlining Gentoo >> into the most fork-able distro on the planet. WE could all be one >> happy family and yet be very competitive with our ideas, trials >> and published results? Surely a few eggheads >> (academcis/pedantics) see the wisdom of competing micro_distros? >> Then there can be peace and harmony as everybody can do exactly >> as they please with their little cluster of gentoo and their very >> own portage-tree. And then folks running gentoo-proper now can >> pick and choose which innovations they want to include in the >> master tree. > > As an ordinary user, this sounds pretty bad. Forking is great for > developers, but bad for users. I don’t *want* 27 different > Gentoo-derived fork distributions, each of which is great at one > thing. I don’t want to have to reinstall a different OS just > because I switch from writing embedded code to running Octave. > Honestly, I don’t even want to go out and find other OS’s repos, > add them as overlays, and hope the inter-OS dependencies work. I think James has perhaps spoken ambiguously, or at least I hope that you have misunderstood his proposal. (If you haven't, then he's misunderstood mine.) The point of making it easier to fork is not only for the benefit of developers. As James says: > And then folks running gentoo-proper now can pick and choose which > innovations they want to include in the master tree. The idea being the people who "run" Gentoo, that being the developers of Gentoo, can pick what they want from the forks and derivatives, and include those improvements in the master tree. Then all Gentoo users, and all derivatives of Gentoo, can benefit from those improvements. Consider the relationship between Fedora and CentOS/RHEL. Fedora is released rapidly, compared to RHEL. It is where innovation and development happen for them. Then RHEL picks the best bits from them and ships it in their product. You don't have to run Fedora to be able to use the work they produce. (Though sometimes you have to wait a while!) So for one example, at Adélie we are focusing hard on the musl libc. At some point in the future, when we have things looking good, we can contribute that back to the official Gentoo musl overlay. Ideally, that would be the main Gentoo package tree... but at least the overlay. We have also packaged some great open fonts that we've found. We can easily send our ebuilds to Gentoo's media team and they could put it right in to the tree. (Right now, I'm still working out the best ways to use the fonts eclass... hence there is no upstreaming yet.) Forks and derivatives allow a much wider community the ability to experiment with the powerful Gentoo system without fear of "breaking" the "real" Gentoo tree. Things like my APK BINPKG_FORMAT patch may never make it upstream, which is fine. However, overall the goal is to enrich the broader Gentoo userbase. After all, isn't that the idea behind open source in the first place? You have the freedom to take the code, do what you want with it, and then contribute your changes back when you're sure they're good. Forking Gentoo allows people to try out more wide-sweeping or drastic changes without any danger. The future can be cool and groovy if we have the freedom to tinker :) - --arw - -- A. Wilcox (awilfox) Project Lead, Adélie Linux http://adelielinux.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYS5zfAAoJEMspy1GSK50UjiYQALxqN9b3UG04ioErJ/fyBoaK qSZjyCw7xXK+SaiNXyfDQPPmoTMxdNgog74awEwM4bGVYplMECeIf8JLcyDpRzol fBbnhucckeLAYM+n4RNv/eozjRtg7qc5SgnkIL0mihDkzEVgAX5d5pUS4V4ZIoe5 P8Q3fMsxdOFomBetLG3pKBpO980xylf2xy/6EoZVAbeR0kIqw4NecskTe+by4toz vJbrvKX4ht+yhNPGw+QfKY+oM3KEzc8VsjcDI53OzFL4CuNm43CkAECExhcl1pXi 4VbmENP5M1omP5AhAJiEsev3ORhzXKFX+9Zs8Z/WQYi+Osnzw3I2HxX5FK7g8J9K DNprGIrjnoazwKVMaBapK8qEmI8r8xYQVqKq6s8wzWbTa8k1FYA0H8A/pCbeQmjz o/TdE8oc5py426T7CThxFVsRdLiq0q8werEJ4Zql1nFBNYu34Us15i8MIkujHu25 mrByesaeuTM25TfHzRV0A7LCte8vvGJkwZ6Z9ndokJdSIn9Xjw4sUgGRjT5SKsu4 KKN4UDTpATSX5jRmCfVeREHWyPuVJermeX/2BRVmH1EbQ4KgqPetLMm19SBzKxEs dOLLlPRj4lsh9s7Z/J9nkzKUGWsNBUGbM9+iMOF5/e8CgT4eLIcmHsmFeqxJsylk IrzjcKTPHvEeM4oP+Yfm =2Y0G -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On 12/07/2016 07:36 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > > >> I'm asking recuiters directly, but unless someone changed the rules >> and I was distracted, irc is not mandatory. > > I've got confirmation that nothing has changed, so irc is not mandatory. > I hope this clears any misunderstandings and puts an end to any > speculation. > > Best regards, > Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto > Gentoo Developer > Would you mind telling us who told you that? I don't disagree or anything, but if others have further questions, we should route them to the person you spoke with. -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On 12/09/2016 09:46 PM, Christopher Head wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:15:06 -0500 > james wrote: > >> Being able to use stage-4 or stage-5 (G. forums) installs to rapidly >> provision a collection of bare-metal systems [BGO-593218] into a wide >> variety of hardened clusters is my passion. Unikernels as stage 4 >> packages can then very easily be targeted for very specific needs: VM >> or container or bare-metal. Gentoo-proper is has too much political >> baggage to encourage folks to innovate, imho. So, I really hope the >> gentoo dev community gets behind the Anna Wilcox idea of streamlining >> Gentoo into the most fork-able distro on the planet. WE could all be >> one happy family and yet be very competitive with our ideas, trials >> and published results? Surely a few eggheads (academcis/pedantics) >> see the wisdom of competing micro_distros? Not unlike competing >> micro_breweries, it make the entire craft much stronger and better >> for all. >> >> >> Then there can be peace and harmony as everybody can do exactly as >> they please with their little cluster of gentoo and their very own >> portage-tree. And then folks running gentoo-proper now can pick and >> choose which innovations they want to include in the master tree. >> Isn't that pretty much what Google and CoreOS do now, as well as the >> gentoo derivative OS? Why not accelerate what has worked, for the >> few, to emancipate those of us still chained into user-land servitude. > > As an ordinary user, this sounds pretty bad. Forking is great for > developers, but bad for users. I don’t *want* 27 different > Gentoo-derived fork distributions, each of which is great at one thing. > I don’t want to have to reinstall a different OS just because I switch > from writing embedded code to running Octave. Honestly, I don’t even > want to go out and find other OS’s repos, add them as overlays, and > hope the inter-OS dependencies work. > > As an ordinary user, what I *want*, is to install one OS and not think > about it again. Ideally, Gentoo. When I want to do embedded > development, I just emerge dev-embedded/thingy. When I want to do some > math, I just emerge sci-mathematics/octave. Most things that most > people care about in the main tree. Breaking things up into overlays or > different OSs or whatever just means adding more hoops that I have to > jump through before I can start working on a new topic. > Unfortunately even with a rich technical foundation (like Gentoo's) can't ensure that happens. Forks are patches around social problems or (sometimes, but rarely) technical disagreements. As much as some would insist that libre software is purely technical, there's an important and prevalent social component that influences the technical side. At some point or another, people can't work together and as a result the ebuilds scatter. Adding overlays via layman is dead-simple, and iirc you can use bugzie to file bugs against any official layman overlay. There *are* ways to deal with overlays in a mostly centralized manner. The layman list and bugzilla support goes a long way to making that possible, and the guys behind it did a great job. One Size Fits All is a dream. It sounds great on paper, but when it comes time to Just Do It™, you get all the messiness that comes with wetware and the disagreements on software. I see where you're coming from and yes, it'd be nice if we could all just use Gentoo. But reality (read: volunteering) doesn't work that way. If you have any issues with overlays, please, use the ML or #gentoo so somebody can help you out. -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On 12/11/2016 08:05 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 12/07/2016 07:36 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'm asking recuiters directly, but unless someone changed the rules >>> and I was distracted, irc is not mandatory. >> >> I've got confirmation that nothing has changed, so irc is not mandatory. >> I hope this clears any misunderstandings and puts an end to any >> speculation. >> >> Best regards, >> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto >> Gentoo Developer >> > Would you mind telling us who told you that? I don't disagree or > anything, but if others have further questions, we should route them to > the person you spoke with. > I did. No, do not redirect them to me. If the wiki does not clarify that, then fix the wiki. But seriously, are we arguing here about connecting to IRC for a few hours in your entire dev-hood? Is this really *that* hard? Or is it just another excuse to complain about the whole process? Anyway, nobody (to my knowledge) ever got rejected because he/she did not have IRC access so please stop speculating and throwing flamebaits here and there. We have more than enough already. -- Regards, Markos Chandras
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On 12/11/2016 02:00 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 12/11/2016 08:05 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> On 12/07/2016 07:36 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm asking recuiters directly, but unless someone changed the rules and I was distracted, irc is not mandatory. >>> >>> I've got confirmation that nothing has changed, so irc is not mandatory. >>> I hope this clears any misunderstandings and puts an end to any >>> speculation. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto >>> Gentoo Developer >>> >> Would you mind telling us who told you that? I don't disagree or >> anything, but if others have further questions, we should route them to >> the person you spoke with. >> > > I did. No, do not redirect them to me. If the wiki does not clarify > that, then fix the wiki. > > But seriously, are we arguing here about connecting to IRC for a few > hours in your entire dev-hood? Is this really *that* hard? Or is it just > another excuse to complain about the whole process? > > Anyway, nobody (to my knowledge) ever got rejected because he/she did > not have IRC access so please stop speculating and throwing flamebaits > here and there. We have more than enough already. > I think maybe you're mixing me up with someone else. That said, editing the wiki sounds good since it'll save developer time. -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On 12/11/2016 10:49 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 12/11/2016 02:00 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 08:05 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> On 12/07/2016 07:36 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > I'm asking recuiters directly, but unless someone changed the rules > and I was distracted, irc is not mandatory. I've got confirmation that nothing has changed, so irc is not mandatory. I hope this clears any misunderstandings and puts an end to any speculation. Best regards, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto Gentoo Developer >>> Would you mind telling us who told you that? I don't disagree or >>> anything, but if others have further questions, we should route them to >>> the person you spoke with. >>> >> >> I did. No, do not redirect them to me. If the wiki does not clarify >> that, then fix the wiki. >> >> But seriously, are we arguing here about connecting to IRC for a few >> hours in your entire dev-hood? Is this really *that* hard? Or is it just >> another excuse to complain about the whole process? >> >> Anyway, nobody (to my knowledge) ever got rejected because he/she did >> not have IRC access so please stop speculating and throwing flamebaits >> here and there. We have more than enough already. >> > I think maybe you're mixing me up with someone else. That said, editing > the wiki sounds good since it'll save developer time. > It was merely a "call for some fact checking" to the original reporter who claimed that IRC is mandatory or whatever. -- Regards, Markos Chandras
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On 12/10/2016 01:12 AM, A. Wilcox wrote: > > So for one example, at Adélie we are focusing hard on the musl libc. > At some point in the future, when we have things looking good, we can > contribute that back to the official Gentoo musl overlay. Ideally, > that would be the main Gentoo package tree... but at least the overlay. > > We have also packaged some great open fonts that we've found. We can > easily send our ebuilds to Gentoo's media team and they could put it > right in to the tree. (Right now, I'm still working out the best ways > to use the fonts eclass... hence there is no upstreaming yet.) The quizzes are probably a little heavy on Gentoo politics if that isn't your main concern, but working primarily on another distribution doesn't preclude one from becoming a Gentoo developer =)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On December 9, 2016 10:12:54 PM PST, "A. Wilcox" wrote: >I think James has perhaps spoken ambiguously, or at least I hope that >you have misunderstood his proposal. (If you haven't, then he's >misunderstood mine.) > >The point of making it easier to fork is not only for the benefit of >developers. As James says: > >> And then folks running gentoo-proper now can pick and choose which >> innovations they want to include in the master tree. > >The idea being the people who "run" Gentoo, that being the developers >of Gentoo, can pick what they want from the forks and derivatives, and >include those improvements in the master tree. Then all Gentoo users, >and all derivatives of Gentoo, can benefit from those improvements. You’re right, I took the word “run” in the sense of “execute” (the OS), not in the sense of “manage” (the organization). If forks are a way to develop work destined for upstream, they’re great. It’s when they become a tool for fragmenting the community (of both users and developers) without any hope of work being recombined that they become a problem. -- Christopher Head
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish
On 12/13/2016 10:47 AM, Christopher Head wrote: > On December 9, 2016 10:12:54 PM PST, "A. Wilcox" > wrote: >> I think James has perhaps spoken ambiguously, or at least I hope that >> you have misunderstood his proposal. (If you haven't, then he's >> misunderstood mine.) >> >> The point of making it easier to fork is not only for the benefit of >> developers. As James says: >> >>> And then folks running gentoo-proper now can pick and choose which >>> innovations they want to include in the master tree. >> >> The idea being the people who "run" Gentoo, that being the developers >> of Gentoo, can pick what they want from the forks and derivatives, and >> include those improvements in the master tree. Then all Gentoo users, >> and all derivatives of Gentoo, can benefit from those improvements. > > You’re right, I took the word “run” in the sense of “execute” (the OS), not > in the sense of “manage” (the organization). If forks are a way to develop > work destined for upstream, they’re great. It’s when they become a tool for > fragmenting the community (of both users and developers) without any hope of > work being recombined that they become a problem. > Sometimes people don't get along or play politics to fight within an organization. At that point, one is forced to route around the social damage and branch off. It's at the "host"'s discretion whether they want to pull from the fork, and I don't think pressuring or forcing either of those groups to work together would be a good idea. I'm applying this in a general sense, to clarify. It's true that it can create a maintenance burden and sometimes even confusion, but what else can you do about volunteers that can't agree on a way forward for a given project? -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
