On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]
Christopher Faylor
cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com
Sun Mar 28 22:25:00 GMT 2004
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:02:55PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>cgf wrote:
>
>>I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the
>>distribution, however.
>>
>>Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on
>>these things. It could have rules like "a package needs a simple
>>majority vote to be a candidate for inclusion". I'd envision seven
>>people on the committee. I have names in mind but the only two
>>definites are really Corinna and me, both of whom would also have veto
>>power.
>>
>>I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be
>>included, remembering that we have a "software" web page at cygwin.com
>>which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff
>>for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here
>>which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site.
>
>I'd really like to object to this SC idea, as most of us *have*
>exercised restraint while a select few have not. Why should the
>responsible maintainers be punished for someone's binge ITP'ing? I
>think we should keep it the way it is, perhaps with a little more of you
>laying the smack-down on anyone who is abusing it. I would respect a
>veto from you, Corinna, or Chuck, but the voting should still be left to
>the existing maintainers. After seeing what a steering committee has
>done to gcc, I'd be very hesitant to subject Cygwin to one.
I guess we have differing views on how the steering committee affected
gcc but this is really very different from the gcc (or gdb) steering
committee. In general, I think they do a good job.
However, just because I used a similar term to describe this doesn't
mean that it will be exactly like gcc's steering committee.
I'm coming to feel that their should be a higher bar for package entry
into the release and don't think that any old package maintainer should
get an equal vote in the process.
>Here's one idea to limit the binge ITP's:
>No more than 1 ITP per month unless approved by either you or Corinna.
I can't speak for Corinna, but I would rather *not* have to be the bad
guy or a single (double?) point of contact. I would rather have more
community involvement. I'm already drowning in being the focal point
for most cygwin bugs with help from only two other developers. I don't
want to invent new things for me or Corinna to do, especially when there
is no requirement for in-depth cygwin knowledge.
Setting up a council or committee to approve or disprove apps means
that the load is shared and there theoretically a consistent way for
packages to be included.
>Another approach might be to ask: "Do the Linux vendors support it?".
That is exactly an idea that I was going to propose. I was waiting to
see where the discussion was going first. I was going to use actually
veto ac-archive on this basis but then noticed that when I typed:
up2date ac-archive
ac-archive got pulled into my fedora-based system. So vetoing ac-archive
because for this reason wouldn't work.
However, even with this rule, there is still a need for someone(s)
to rule on the edge cases.
>I know some might not want to hear it, but if setup.exe can't handle
>the current load or scale in a sane manner, perhaps the problem lies
>with setup.exe itself?
This was part of my motivation for asking if setup.exe development was
stalled. I think that we are reaching a point where some innovation
(and maybe a radical GUI redesign) is needed.
>Didn't someone broach the subject of possibly looking into NSIS
>installer (which, if I'm not mistaken, is a front-end for this API)?
Yes, someone did. I have no problem with moving to a new installer
interface but, given the current level of development, I don't see who's
going to do the work. If we don't have a volunteer available to
do the work of adapting NSIS but we do have volunteers available to
keep setup.exe working then it's really a moot point.
>I'm sick and tired of seeing things being "dumbed" down for the benefit
>of the clueless at the expense of the power-user, and I know I'm not
>alone.
I've always felt like this, actually. The first version of the installer
was just a command-line version.
I don't think that the current setup.exe is dumbed down. It just isn't
really feature-rich.
cgf
More information about the Cygwin-apps
mailing list