On 30/07/10 11:23, mike rosset wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Allan McRae<allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Caleb Cushing<xenoterracide@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Just so you know.... I volunteered to be a junior dev and was
rejected. I have ~400
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&L=2&K=xenoterracide
packages on the AUR. I file out of date packages on on Arch every day.
I think I filed ALL the rebuild bugs (for perl- packages ) for 5.12.
I've been running it for 3 months. I think I've done everything I
/can/ to get this rolled out. The fact is the small, very small amount
of work that has yet to be done... I can't do.
The goal of Arch Linux is not to package things faster than everybody else.
The goal of Arch is to make the distribution that the developers want to
use. It just happens that Arch developers like having most things packaged
quickly so that is what we do.
If we happen to be delayed updating something, it is either because no
developer has the time to update it or no developer particular cares about
updating it. We develop this distribution in our own free time so will get
to things when we want to, not when demand dictates it.
And yes you have filed bugs about rebuilds, and yes you applied to be a
junior dev. However, your demanding attitude in repeated emails with
regards to this update means that we would much rather have a delayed perl
release that have you on the developer team. We rate not being an ass much
high than technical skill when selecting people when selecting people to
"work" with.
Allan
I think everyone is missing the OP's point. Seems he has done a lot of
work already to bring this version of perl to Arch. Work that is going
to be done anyways by a Arch developer. If there is some technical
reason to not except them. Then by all means just state the technical
reasons maybe he can fix them.
The OPs point was that we should be embarrassed to have perl released
after Mandriva has got it into their developmental repos. Note that we
have had the same perl release in our "developmental" repo for ages the
OP really was just being a wanker.
My response, as it has been in all the previous emails on this topic is
that it will get done when it gets done. We all have other things to do
in life (including paid employment) and things get done when we get
time. For many of us, things that we get paid for take priority. If I
was being paid to work on Arch, then my priorities would change (my
consulting rates are >100USD per hour if someone want to employ me...).
But this is not the first time I have seen this kinda of
contradiction. If anyone has a bug or problem they are told to submit
patches. When they have patches they then have to jump through so many
hoops they never get submitted. Or they get flamed to the point they
rather not contribute every again.
Just because you have submitted patches or bug reports (which _is_ very
useful and appreciated), does not mean that our time will magically free
up. It just means that we need to free up less time.
The reason this particular thread got the response it did is that this
is not the first such thread the OP has started and now we should
apparently be embarrassed by another distro updating a package to their
developmental repo.
I find it hard to believe that a distribution that contains how many
thousands of opensource project in it's repositories. Has failed to
adopt a more open development process then this.
What is not open? Everything we do is in the open. You can see every
commit we make to SVN on the arch-commits list, all development
discussion occurs on arch-dev-public. We are also quite open about
doing this on a volunteer basis and that quite often other things take
priority in our lives. I'm not sure what we could do to be more open
but suggestions on that (in a separate thread) would be welcome.
Allan
