Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] My resignation

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] My resignation
  • Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:44:17 -0500

On 07/20/2012 11:17 AM, Sukneet Basuta wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Ladislav Hagara
> <ladislav.hagara AT unob.cz> wrote:
>> Yea, we have problems and time to time even I personally think about
>> Source Mage fork. It is difficult to make some agreement here. I am
>> upset with xorg, glibc, kmod, gcc branches. None plans to pull them into
>> master.
>
> I was thinking about the branches thing as well. We need a master bug
> or something that states why the branch was created and what is needed
> for it to get merged into test. I agree that we do not communicate
> enough to do things the way we are.
>
>> Fork?
>> New leaders ballot?
>
> Possibly. I feel that the project lead should be addressing these
> development issues in some way. Something is wrong if a lot of
> developers feel like leaving.

What should I do differently? Should I tell you how to do everything?
Should I start smashing glasses and just merge all the things, and risk
breaking the systems of many people? Should I just do all the work
myself? I simply don't have time to do all the work. I can't. If you
want a leader who does all the work, I'm fine with that, no hard
feelings. (really, this isn't some passive-aggressive thing)

For the most part, people have done spell updates, and I've watched
commits and complaints about things not being done, but nobody steps up
to say, "If this meets <X> will that be good enough to get it merged?"
And then when compliance is met, they would push to get it merged. Often
someone says, "I made this branch and it works for me." Then someone
else will post "Nope, it doesn't." And it often dies right there.

The most recent glibc 2.15 branch should probably be merged in, it looks
like due diligence has been done with that, but I'm not a dictator. If
others have problems with merging it, we should discuss it. I think it's
probably okay, but I'd like to personally knows which spells are known
to compile and work against that version of glibc. I'm somewhat nervous
about "Works for me" without any other specific information. I don't
particularly want to break peoples boxes.

That being said, yeah we need people to do the hard work, and then ask
for reviews of it, and we need to settle on what is allowed in for big
changes like this.

>
>> Yea, sorcery development could be more active, cauldron is
>> dead. The main problem is that we don't speak together. I know that with
>> some developers it is impossible to talk about changes.
>
> Personally, I would love to make some changes to sorcery, but I feel
> that grimoire needs the most work. Sorcery works for the most part.
> IMO grimoire is a mess and too many spells don't compile.

Cauldron scripts work, just nobody has bothered to take the time to
build another iso. You want one? build it. Ask flux_control for help,
he'll be more than happy to explain you how to do it. Make it, show that
it installs for people, and we'll make it official.

There's no shortage of work to be done, just no one wants to do it, and
everyone wants to complain about it.

I'm sorry I don't have as much time as I used to in the past, and that I
can't spend all my time working on things for Sourcemage. I'd like to
change a lot of things, but it's a large commitment to work on, and I
find that I have many other responsibilities as well.

--
David

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page