Re: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 00:34, Jakub Moc wrote:

> +1 on this, and please don't touch bugzie aliases, there's enough mess as
> it is (postgresl herd - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; apache herd - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]) If you want to do something useful, then please check
> that you have existing alias in metadata.xml for the ebuilds that you are
> maintaining (to name a few: qt, secure-tunneling or comm-fax is NOT an
> existing alias on bugzilla).

And while you're at it, also set the alias for your herd in the herds.xml 
file. That's where the authoritive mapping is.

Paul

ps. If [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't exist that is broken, as it's even announced 
in 
the herds file.

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgpcoXu2j5lAk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

19.11.2005, 23:19:41, Brian Harring wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:57PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:

>> I would have preferred that the people involved with this could
>> have directly asked infra if this would work for us. That's a simple
>> request that I did not see from these folks.

> It's a crazy notion, but y'all could've commented in the *TWO* months 
> that this glep has been percolating, "yo, what do you want from an 
> infra standpoint?".

> Or implemented anoncvs in the meantime, thus nuking the main request 
> that's being made of infra.

/ne notes there's been no such thing like subdomains in the *original*
(rejected) GLEP...


--
jakub

pgp6MXTC6V2qc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

19.11.2005, 10:31:23, Thierry Carrez wrote:

> Corey Shields wrote:

>>>Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
>>>people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
>>>exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a
>>>clear answer...
>> 
>> Jakub++  Nobody in infra is on board with this idea, so you will be hard 
>> pressed to find someone willing to implement it.

> What I find disturbing here is that nobody found the issue interesting
> enough to read the October Council decisions as to what was needed to be
> changed for the GLEP to be approved. But when, one month later, those
> requirements have been met and the GLEP approved, lots of people
> discover that the issue is interesting and complain about it (when it's
> a little too late to be changed).

Erm, what exactly could have been discussed, the revised GLEP being submitted
about a day before the council meeting? Are you expecting people to hang on
email 24/7?

> I'm losing faith in Gentoo. When the GLEP was first discussed, the
> general mood was that we shouldn't give ATs the same powers than we give
> to devs (in particular, no right to vote for the Council), and in
> consequence a need to tell them apart. The Council rejected the proposed
> GLEP in that sense. Now, the mood is like the Council want to yellowstar
> some part of our contributors... and the discussion happen on the same list.

> You can't just ignore the discussion and the iterim decisions and
> complain afterwards when the decision is taken.

I've already mentioned that I don't oppose to AT concept and making them
official Gentoo stuff (and a couple of people did that as well), but drawing
the distinction around an email address, resulting in troubles for
infrastructure and hassle for users/other devs has not been properly considered
apparently; still waiting for someone to show a single benefit of such an
arrangement.

Email address is a means of communication with people, not a *power*. If
anyone's interested in/does care for what's the exact role of that particular
person in Gentoo, that's what roll-call is for. AT or not, any person w/
@gentoo.org email address is representing Gentoo, users don't care what's the
difference between ATs, forums staff and full devs and I don't see why exactly
they should even care. Users also don't care if someone has CVS commit privs or
voting rights. These are internal Gentoo things, email address is not playing
any role in that.

Now, we might we perhaps move the focus to more important issues jstubbs
mentioned in his last email, expecting that any implementation of the now
approved GLEP wrt the email addresses won't be pushed in a similar way the
whole revised GLEP has been, until infra issues and usefulness of this are
sorted out/reconsidered at least.


-- 

jakub

pgpO0DycdKZ4m.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

19.11.2005, 5:30:35, Stephen P. Becker wrote:

>> Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be
>> mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs.

> Sorry, but that's a big no.  People that add/remove keywords without 
> making note in the Changelog deserve a massive kick in the nuts.  I'm 
> not sure if you have been paying attention to Changelogs, but all of the 
> sane arches have and will continue to make such entries.

> -Steve

Grrrmhhh, was it so much unclear? I mean: "stable on x86" definitely belongs to
changelogs, while "stable on x86, thanks Jim for opening a keywording bug, Jack
and Jim for testing and Joe for reminding me five times to mark it finally
stable when I forgot about it" does NOT.

It's the responsibility of the developer who keyworded the thing anyway, ATs
are not allowed to keyword stuff and don't have RW CVS access, so what is the
purpose of tracking such stuff in changelogs and cluttering them? Use CVS
commit messages to track such things if you think you need it.

--
jakub

pgpjq8z3F08C9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

19.11.2005, 3:49:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| >> ChangeLogs.
> | 
> | How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed
> | something?

> "Stable on $arch, thanks to $at1 and $at2 for testing and hunting down
> build issues."

Thanks, no... Reminds ne of the debates on forums.g.o, why emerge --changelog
feature is useless and why people file pointless bugs: too much irrelevant
stuff.

Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be
mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs. (Submitting patches
is naturally completely different thing, but that's not what ATs do 99% of the
time they spend testing stuff).


-- 

jakub

pgpQVYcgsQSLw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in ChangeLogs.

How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed something?


-- 

jakub

pgpd4At0gxKS4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote:

> Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping Gentoo
> feel like they're part of the family.  It was decided that a straight
> @gentoo.org address would be confusing, though, since most people associate
> those addresses with developers.  I'm fairly agnostic on the whole thing,
> myself, but since the Council voted to approve the GLEP, I was simply trying
> to do my best to put forth a proposal that fit within that framework.

> -g2boojum-

Uhm, no? Most people associate those addresses with people associated with
Gentoo, perhaps? And, most people are not interested in internal Gentoo
structure and workings, as well?

Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a
clear answer...

I'm *not* against the concept of arch testers at all, in fact I find this idea 
pretty
beneficial, but why do we need to complicate things and why do we need to
create third-level domain emails for that?

--
jakub

pgpMA7vL46NrY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

19.11.2005, 1:07:40, Homer Parker wrote:

> 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] 

> /me wanders off in search of his flameproof suit


Sorry, but the above does not make the thing any better than an *officially
approved* PITA. Does not really answer klieber's question at all, nor does it
answer the objections of other people expressed in this thread.


--
jakub

pgp8uBACEGwUH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:

> My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role
> that arch testers serve.  My personal preference would be to choose something
> like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have
> preferred "volunteer" if it weren't for the niggling fact that we're all
> volunteers.)

> -g2boojum-

Once again - I don't know if it's not been clear enough so far, from the
replies on this topic: I don't have time nor desire to dig out somewhere on the
web what's the correct email I should use to contact someone... there are about
200 more or less active Gentoo devs around and the last thing I need is to
ponder upon what project/role that particular person is on. What's the benefit?
:/

Please, don't introduce such PITA.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

pgpsnSiumXLQP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

19.11.2005, 0:29:24, Kurt Lieber wrote:

> What purpose does this serve?  This would create all sorts of confusion.
> Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption that
> their email address is @gentoo.org.  This would confuse things
> horribly imo.  What about people like me that span multiple roles?

> What happens when someone (again, like me) starts out in one area, moves to
> another, then still a third and finally a fourth?  We're going to be
> updating aliases all over the place and for what?

> How does any of this make Gentoo Linux a better distro?  Does it reduce
> bugs?  Improve QA?  Can I add -staff.gentoo.org to my CFLAGS and get a
> 0.1% speed increase?

> 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.

+1 on this, and please don't touch bugzie aliases, there's enough mess as it is
(postgresl herd - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; apache herd - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) If you want to do something useful, then please check that
you have existing alias in metadata.xml for the ebuilds that you are
maintaining (to name a few: qt, secure-tunneling or comm-fax is NOT an existing
alias on bugzilla).


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

pgpxJBU5c01Jv.pgp
Description: PGP signature