On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Paul Mattal wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On 10/16/07, Simo Leone <simo@archlinux.org> wrote:
Sounds like making a mountain out of a mole hill to me.
At first, I didn't think Simo was right. I thought this would go the way of a sane discussion.
But in typical devland fashion, we decided to stab this issue to death with the knives of blather.
Let me see if I can steer this cart away from the cliff a bit, but we might be going too fast to abort.
Everyone makes these grand claims like "repoman will fix THAT" and "lets move TUs up and start 'firing' crappy packagers" and all these sorts of things. Don't get me wrong, they're perfectly valid suggestions and good ones.
The problem is the timeline. This is always an issue. A lot of these suggestions will take a large chunk of work, and a lot of effort.
I know how our dev team works. If we actually decide that these things are a good idea, there will be two people doing the work while everyone else keeps wondering why it's not done.
So we simply can't do that. Fact.
We need to move in baby steps. We WILL have a problem implementing these large sweeping suggestions, so here's the question I pose to all of you who have very strong opinions:
What's the first step?
Create [mantle]. Vote packages into it by 50%+ vote of dev team. See what happens and what is left in [extra]. Auction any orphans off to other devs and/or TUs to put in community.
These would be the first few steps.
- P
Shouldn't the first step be to identify clearly what current or potential problems are we trying to solve? Maybe that whole repo reorganisation is not needed after all. If the main issue here is a potential increase in the number of orphans after the current cleanup, I posted a simple solution in another thread that would work with the current repo setup with zero work involved. BTW, we should wait until the cleqanup/adoption is completed before doing any repo work. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.