sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
- From: "Ryan Abrams" <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
- To: <eric AT sandall.us>
- Cc: <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:14:39 -0500
I have been thinking about this as well. Since I spent most of yesterday on
an epic crawl through 100+ open bugs it has been on my mind. See.. i found
several bugs from July with spells attached that hadnt even been touched..
and that ain't good.
Here is what I was thinking:
When laying out the grimoire team in the constitution, define sections as
"subteams" - with the guru being the team leader.. so there would be a KDE
team, a GNOME team, etc. Most of these teams would be 1 person.. some larger
sections could have more developers in them working with the leader.
Then the MAIN grimoire team would have a leader, and some developers. Those
grimoire team developers would consist of 4-5 people who are the most
dedicated / have the most time and ability. They would be required to work
with the grimoire team lead to keep up to date on what is happening in ALL
sections. In exchange for that commitment in time, they would also have the
ability to add and update spells within subteams/sections. Obviously common
courtesy would be to check with the section teams first, but "grimoire team"
developers would essentially be grimoire-wide gurus.
The "grimoire" team would also have a security auditor or two, who would
also have the power to modify spells in whatever section. But i think we
will limit them to the following: "take over a spell when it is patched for
a security hole. maintain it. as soon as the fix makes it into the standard
tarball, remove the patch(es), update the spell to the fixed version, and
hand control back to the guru"
Obviously Section Team Gurus could be Security Auditors could be Grimoire
Team Gurus. But as we grow, this would help distribute the weight.
If this system makes sense to everyone, there is no reason to wait for me to
write it up all fancy in our constitution.. go ahead and set it up. But I
leave that to Eric Schabell to determine.
Oh.. and as far as spell count/growth.. i actually think we are doing pretty
good on getting new spells in when things are released (the fontconfig spell
that came through today was pretty timely, and dont get me started on the 5
minute turnaround on jfs tools. ;P). I dont think we need to actively go
find stuff to make spells for just to boost our count. That will happen over
time. I would focus on new releases of cool stuff, and on quick turn around
for spell requests (spell requests being an area that could use some work)
In any case.. it's quality, not quantity.
-Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Sandall" <eric AT sandall.us>
To: <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells
>
> Andrew Stitt said:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:55:00AM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how to approach this, so I will just say it. For
> >> Grimoire Gurus whom do not add spells after a certain amount of time
> >> (say, 2 weeks?) to their section after submition, should/can another
> >> guru add that spell (after testing and making sure the format is
> >> correct, of course) to the appropriate section? The reason I ask is
> >> we seem to be getting a backlog of new spells in certain areas. If I
> >> were a new user whom submitted a spell I liked and just got ignored
> >> for some time (I've been ignored for several months, myself), then I'd
> >> be pretty put out with the whole SM distribution.
> >>
> > well a while back there was some 'discussion' of opening up the grimoire
> > so we could work on each others sections, i dont remember there ever
> > really being a definite conclusion to this. Perhaps its time there is.
> >
> > How many active guru's do we have? by active i mean, subscribed to
> > sm-spell-submit and will add a spell when its submitted (assuming it
> > works or they can make it work). We arent going to make it if most
> > sections are maintained by someone who is out in left field, not adding
> > spells or version bumping. So perhaps we need to find out who is
> > actually helping out, trim down the hurd and open up the grimoire to the
> > remaining Gurus?
> >
> > Im the ham maintainer, and theres not much interest in my section that
> > ive noticed, so im kind of in the dumb position of 'well im a
> > maintainer...but no one really uses my section' id much rather be able
> > to do other random stuff from time to time outside my section.
> >
> > personally i think that our main weak point is not having enough
> > spells. we are going 1.0 in less then two months and have 1500 spells,
> > thats good and 200 better then lunar linux, but still thats not much of
> > a gap. Gentoo has 2459 packages and debian has 8700, Id like to to see
> > sorcery catch up to gentoo in the number of packages. In order to do
> > that we need to be more efficient at getting spells added, which isnt
> > going to happen if no one is paying attention to their section. Maybe
> > just having a dedicated grimoire team is a better solution.
>
> I agree to some extent, in that Grimoire Guru's (GG) should be allowed to
> help out another GG's section if they are lagging behind and/or ask for
> help (the asking should not really be required if they are more than, say,
> two weeks behind in at _least_ responding to requests), but I think we
> should still have maintainers for each section. The reason I think we
> should still have a maintainer (at least one, anyways) assigned to each
> section (and a maintainer can be a GG for more than one section) is so
> that people won't be duplicating efforts as much. We don't want two
> separate people adding the same spell twice. :) Of course, most of my
> latter point is moot since we use SCMs, and once something is done, it's
> there for everyone else to see (well, after an update). So I guess what
> I'm saying is that the grimoire should at least be opened up so that the
> more active maintainers can help out the less active (not that the latter
> is a bad maintainer, because RL takes presedence over volunteer work :))
> so that we can keep SM the best distro out there.
>
> Now, if we do open up the grimoire (not to just anyone, but other GGs),
> then how will we determine who's doing what? If it's a bug in bugzilla,
> they can just reassign it to themselves, but what about spell submissions
> to sm-spell-submit? I say that before a GG takes on a wayward spell from
> sm-spell-submit that they first send a message with the subject starting
> as "ITP: <spellname>", with ITP meaning "Intent To Program/Publish"
> (similar to Debian's sytem), this way it will not be duplicated.
>
> I also agree with you, Andrew, that we need more spells (though this will
> increase the load on the current maintainers) as we don't really have that
> many. Some sections have fewer than 25 spells (though others have close
> to 100).
>
> -One of Four
> a.k.a. sandalle
>
> --
> Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
> eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org
> http://www.sandall.us/~sandalle | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
> http://counter.li.org #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Grimoire mailing list
> SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
>
-
[SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Eric Sandall, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Andrew Stitt, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Eric Sandall, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Ryan Abrams, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Andrew Stitt, 09/06/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells, Eric Sandall, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Eric Sandall, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Dufflebunk, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Eric Sandall, 09/06/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells, Andrew Stitt, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Eric Sandall, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Dufflebunk, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Andrew Stitt, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Andrew Stitt, 09/06/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells, Jeremy A Kolb, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Jonathan Evraire, 09/07/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells, Eric Sandall, 09/07/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Ryan Abrams, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Eric Sandall, 09/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]Unfiled spells,
Andrew Stitt, 09/06/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.