[oi-dev] Resignation

[Nikola M.]

On 10/ 8/14 08:19 PM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote:

> Not that I'm involved any more and I largely just lurk, but I think the disconnect between /dev and /hipster needs to end. It's confusing.
>
> I have proposed for years now that:
>
> /hipster = rolling release
> /dev = snapshots of /hipster
> /release = /periodic snapshots of /dev that are considered more stable
>
> For example you could do automatic /dev releases every 2 weeks. /release can come out once a year, and in the month running up to a /release, you can focus on fixes rather than new features.
Don't think anything automatic is viable for /dev.
Those suppose to be releases, that are tested before putting them out, 
that most people would use actually. (And use to report bugs that are 
visible after longer time.)

Let automatic things be left for Hipster (numbered) releases, because, 
even if rolling release, Hipster also needs testing and bug fixing and 
referencing revisions.

Prior releasing /dev , automatic update manager needs to be revived , to 
be able to push on actually with updates.
/dev would serve no purpose if it would loose ability to signal user 
that next /dev update is available.
It's not like in Hipster, where people actually update things 
themselves, there is no putting things under carpet, like - update 
manager not working and hot being able to update from /dev to Hipster.
I witnessed certain level of not caring for making at least one Hipster 
snapshot cleanly updatable from /dev but that's because only One or Two 
guys do all the work.
> should help with the hipster effort. Perhaps in particular with ensuring quality /release releases and managing that bug fixing process.
If there is anything left regarding quality in Hipster.
Hipster is bombshell rolling release and pushing too much quality in it, 
can slow down things from going on.
Hipster truly needs to become more in line with /dev but not sacrificing 
it's ability to change.

In between /dev releases, Hipster lives and that is where quality 
control can come to life,
before /dev is released.
Automatic /dev from random Hipster snapshots does not sound like quality 
at all.

It would be great to make things work like you said,actually, then many 
other people would come to light and be usable if the process is made - 
where more people could be involved.
> Also some of the peanut gallery posts on this mailing list make me want to throw up. I don't think anyone should be allowed to attend an OI meeting unless they have contributed at least X months worth of commits to the OI github account. Talk is cheap, and people should have to earn the right to have an opinion on how the project is run.
>
> Back when I was project lead, I made the mistake of soliciting input from all interested parties, which resulted in enormous weekly meetings with lots of talk and no action. It killed the project, as it became mired in indecision and a total lack of focus. What is needed is a single minded lazer sharp focus.
Single minded never helped distributions. (See OpenSXCE) On the other 
hand, making process, like you partially described where more people 
could be involved, making /dev more of a quality thing, could work.

It was probably lack of organization that killed many efforts before.
151a7 was best OI release ever, everything worked, things worked nice etc.
I think that forming teams to do what they do was a very good idea.

Problem that Apl pointed out is that there is too little people for that 
groups concept
and that it should be seen who actually today care at all
and who actually want do do anything and what number of people available 
it is.
So not only regarding number of contributions on GitHub until now.
  - that would just further limit number of people to be involved. 
Everyone can do something.

It is true that, if one wants to do something,
he/she should can do it and present work already done and move to a next 
self-appointed task.
Surely IF it is wanted by end users and by ecosystem that actually use 
distribution, of course.

That is what I missed in OI from day one. Not organizing people in a 
processes that works.
At the day OI was announced, on Live event when Alasdair presented OI as 
a project,
someone misinterpreted my question on IRC of: "How development 
organisation woudl be for OI" and translated it to: "Will it be more 
like Linux".
So that person that asked wrong question did not do any good to OI with 
that.