1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
|
\summary{2008}{4}{10}
\agendaitem{Document of being an active developer}
\index{developer certificate}
Last month: No updates
Updates: No updates
\agendaitem{Slacker arches}
\index{arches!slacking}
3 months ago:
vapier will work on rich0's suggestion and repost it for
discussion on -dev ML
Last month:
vapier said he was going to work on it this weekend.
Updates:
vapier said he's finishing it up and will have it posted tonight.
\agendaitem{GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml}
\index{GLEP!46!approval}
Reference: \glep{46}
2 months ago:
Caveat on approval about allowed protocols
Updates:
Restriction to http/https has been dropped as pointed out by
council members (amne and Flameeyes if I'm right). The point
for restricting the URLs to the mentioned protocols was that
they shouldn't link to automatically updated ressources. This
has been replaced by an explicit specification and a
recommendation that http/http should be favoured over
ftp/svn/gopher/etc to make the implementation for automated
update discovery tools easier (they should of course ignore URLs
they can't handle).
Approved.
\agendaitem{Minimal activity for ebuild devs}
\index{developers!minimal activity}
Current is 1 commit every 60 days. Should it be higher?
Agreement was hard to find. Some people thought it should be 1
commit / week, others said that people have busy lives and
questioned the benefits.
A number of people did agree that we should trust the judgment of
the undertakers.
dberkholz suggested that low commit rates may not maintain the
quality of the committer, and we should more carefully review the
commits of these people.
Ways to track commit stats of various sorts came up, such as cia.vc
and ohloh. cia seems to have too much downtime to rely on. ciaranm
talked with ohloh people already. ohloh would require some
modifications to ohcount to recognize ebuilds and eclasses, and a
full copy of the cvs repository to start, but it seems worth
exploring. Betelgeuse said he would tar up a copy of the gentoo-x86
repo.
\agendaitem{Initial comments on PMS}
\index{PMS}\index{EAPI!kdebuild-1}
Reference: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git
Are there any major changes needed, or just tuning details?
The council voted that kdebuild-1 and other unapproved EAPIs could
not be in an approved PMS document. The spec isn't a place for
proposals or things that will never be submitted for approval by the
council. It's a specification, a reference of what is allowed in the
main tree.
\agendaitem{Open floor}
\index{project!devrel}
blackace asked about complaints against philantrop, eroyf, and spb.
vapier referred that to devrel. Betelgeuse said that there's been no
rejection or action on those complaints yet, and internal discussion
is ongoing. Philantrop complained that he hadn't heard anything
about complaints, and Betelgeuse said that since some members
already left, he didn't want to take matters into his own hands in
sharing private information.
|
GitWeb