The future of the Sunrise project

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The future of the Sunrise project

Michał Górny-5
Hello, everyone.

It has recently came to my attention that things are quite bad with
the Sunrise project [1] lately. Most of the developers have left
the project, and it seems that the contributors have done the same.
The public reviewed repository has major QA issues and hasn't been
updated since mid-2015. The last non-developer commit to the private
repo also seems to come from mid-2015, followed only by a number of
removals and fixes done by Gentoo developers.

Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to
announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it?
If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors
and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo
via proxy-maint?

I should point out that Sunrise has lost a lot of popularity to
proxy-maint, then also to GitHub pull requests (and the two combined).
The developers involved with those provide quite a good review
workflow, with the extra advantage of getting packages straight
into ::gentoo. I don't know how many users would be interested
in keeping them in ::sunrise if they could have them straight
in ::gentoo with similar (if not less...) effort.

Your thoughts?

[1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

attachment0 (968 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Raymond Jennings
In my humble opinion, sunrise is a needless layer of bureaucracy to getting new packages into the tree.  Personlly, I think it's not a bad idea for new packages to be submitted as enhancements directly on bugzilla, possibly CCing any relevant projects who could provide a review.


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Michał Górny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello, everyone.

It has recently came to my attention that things are quite bad with
the Sunrise project [1] lately. Most of the developers have left
the project, and it seems that the contributors have done the same.
The public reviewed repository has major QA issues and hasn't been
updated since mid-2015. The last non-developer commit to the private
repo also seems to come from mid-2015, followed only by a number of
removals and fixes done by Gentoo developers.

Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to
announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it?
If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors
and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo
via proxy-maint?

I should point out that Sunrise has lost a lot of popularity to
proxy-maint, then also to GitHub pull requests (and the two combined).
The developers involved with those provide quite a good review
workflow, with the extra advantage of getting packages straight
into ::gentoo. I don't know how many users would be interested
in keeping them in ::sunrise if they could have them straight
in ::gentoo with similar (if not less...) effort.

Your thoughts?

[1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Dirkjan Ochtman-3
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Your thoughts?

I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better than
sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the latter.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Robin H. Johnson-2
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Your thoughts?
> I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better than
> sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the latter.
The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with the
500+ packages in sunrise.

I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need for
something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt into
the tree.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Raymond Jennings
How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to elsewhere as resources permit?

Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Your thoughts?
> I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better than
> sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the latter.
The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with the
500+ packages in sunrise.

I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need for
something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt into
the tree.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Anthony G. Basile
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
On 6/6/16 5:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> It has recently came to my attention that things are quite bad with
> the Sunrise project [1] lately. Most of the developers have left
> the project, and it seems that the contributors have done the same.
> The public reviewed repository has major QA issues and hasn't been
> updated since mid-2015. The last non-developer commit to the private
> repo also seems to come from mid-2015, followed only by a number of
> removals and fixes done by Gentoo developers.
>
> Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to
> announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it?
> If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors
> and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo
> via proxy-maint?
>
> I should point out that Sunrise has lost a lot of popularity to
> proxy-maint, then also to GitHub pull requests (and the two combined).
> The developers involved with those provide quite a good review
> workflow, with the extra advantage of getting packages straight
> into ::gentoo. I don't know how many users would be interested
> in keeping them in ::sunrise if they could have them straight
> in ::gentoo with similar (if not less...) effort.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise
>

Its time to retire the project.  Put out a last call for anyone to adopt
it.  If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive.
Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so.

sunrise was a great idea.  Debian has a similar project (I forget the
name).  But projects that depend on a particular workflow are going to
go the way of the dinosaurs when the next vcs comes around.  Today its
github, tomorrow its ???.

--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

M. J. Everitt
On 07/06/16 10:29, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Its time to retire the project.  Put out a last call for anyone to adopt
> it.  If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive.
> Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so.
>
>
+1 - This sounds like a fairly sensible solution.

MJE


signature.asc (919 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Sam Jorna (wraeth)
In reply to this post by Anthony G. Basile
On 07/06/16 19:29, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Its time to retire the project.  Put out a last call for anyone to adopt
> it.  If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive.
> Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so.

This seems reasonable - it allows packages that people want actively
maintained to be picked up, and still leaves the rest available in the
overlay outside of gentoo.git so they don't cause any major dramas.

--
Sam Jorna (wraeth) <[hidden email]>
GnuPG Key: D6180C26


signature.asc (970 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Ian Stakenvicius-2
In reply to this post by Raymond Jennings
On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>     > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>     > > Your thoughts?
>>     > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better than
>>     > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the latter.
>>     The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with the
>>     500+ packages in sunrise.
>>
>>     I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need for
>>     something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt into
>>     the tree.
>
> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
> elsewhere as resources permit?
>
> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.
>
Isn't that effectively where we are already at though?  If the last
push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already.
 I guess we just need to announce it..?

As for what to do with the packages that exist already....  what about
adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of:

"Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package
please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a
priority for migration"

..or similar?



signature.asc (220 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Michał Górny-5
Dnia 7 czerwca 2016 16:16:38 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius <[hidden email]> napisał(a):

>On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>>     > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny
><[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>     > > Your thoughts?
>>>     > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better
>than
>>>     > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the
>latter.
>>>     The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with
>the
>>>     500+ packages in sunrise.
>>>
>>>     I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need
>for
>>>     something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt
>into
>>>     the tree.
>>
>> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
>> elsewhere as resources permit?
>>
>> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.
>>
>
>Isn't that effectively where we are already at though?  If the last
>push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already.
> I guess we just need to announce it..?
>
>As for what to do with the packages that exist already....  what about
>adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of:
>
>"Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package
>please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a
>priority for migration"
>
>..or similar?

Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same effect?

Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so people can get the newest ebuilds.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

james-3
On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:

> Dnia 7 czerwca 2016 16:16:38 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
>> On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>>>      > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny
>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>      > > Your thoughts?
>>>>      > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better
>> than
>>>>      > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the
>> latter.
>>>>      The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with
>> the
>>>>      500+ packages in sunrise.
>>>>
>>>>      I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need
>> for
>>>>      something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt
>> into
>>>>      the tree.
>>>
>>> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
>>> elsewhere as resources permit?
>>>
>>> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that effectively where we are already at though?  If the last
>> push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already.
>> I guess we just need to announce it..?
>>
>> As for what to do with the packages that exist already....  what about
>> adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of:
>>
>> "Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package
>> please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a
>> priority for migration"
>>
>> ..or similar?
>
> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same effect?
>
> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so people can get the newest ebuilds.


Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that
lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

M. J. Everitt

On 07/06/16 16:44, james wrote:

> On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same
>> effect?
>>
>> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so
>> people can get the newest ebuilds.
>
> Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that
> lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?
>
>
A year is a very short time in software terms .. maybe 5 years ... !!
But freezing it, with the intention of removing from repos.xml in 5
years time seems reasonable to me.


signature.asc (919 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Michał Górny-5
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:56:16 +0100
"M. J. Everitt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 07/06/16 16:44, james wrote:
> > On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:  
> >> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same
> >> effect?
> >>
> >> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so
> >> people can get the newest ebuilds.  
> >
> > Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that
> > lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?
> >
> >  
> A year is a very short time in software terms .. maybe 5 years ... !!
> But freezing it, with the intention of removing from repos.xml in 5
> years time seems reasonable to me.
I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering
the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with
similar breakage were already removed.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

attachment0 (968 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

M. J. Everitt
On 07/06/16 16:37, Michał Górny wrote:
> I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering
> the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with
> similar breakage were already removed.
>
In which case, we should get a notice out post-haste ...

My concern is for those people using sunrise packages (in whatever
broken state) who might suddenly discover they have completly lost
access to the overlay 'overnight'. Whilst I'm not expecting the
server/repo suddenly to disappear .. there should be a planned migration
path for any users lingering on packages in this overlay to get the
package into maintainership of some form if at all possible. As such it
remains a semi-official Gentoo repository ..

MJE


signature.asc (919 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Anthony G. Basile
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
On 6/7/16 11:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:56:16 +0100
> "M. J. Everitt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 07/06/16 16:44, james wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:  
>>>> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same
>>>> effect?
>>>>
>>>> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so
>>>> people can get the newest ebuilds.  
>>>
>>> Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that
>>> lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?
>>>
>>>  
>> A year is a very short time in software terms .. maybe 5 years ... !!
>> But freezing it, with the intention of removing from repos.xml in 5
>> years time seems reasonable to me.
>
> I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering
> the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with
> similar breakage were already removed.
>

It should not be used as an overlay.  It has not been updated for nearly
a year and if its frozen as an archive then all the more reason.  There
should also be huge warnings in the README.

--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Dirkjan Ochtman-3
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Michał Górny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering
> the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with
> similar breakage were already removed.

Maybe do a regular old "Packages for grabs" thread to see if anyone
wants to salvage something? Could maybe even do a news message on the
site to get more eyeballs on it.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Andreas K. Huettel
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

>
> Your thoughts?
>
> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise

Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were *very*
strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo main tree
- - and a definite frustration threshold that one had to overcome. With a couple
of packages in Sunrise, doing the quizzes was a piece of cake though.

That said...

If there's no activity anymore, we definitely should remove the overlay from
Layman and (important!) remove the mentions of Sunrise from our web pages
(e.g., "contributing to Gentoo").

We now have functioning and active alternatives, see proxy-maintainers.

- --

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
[hidden email]
http://www.akhuettel.de/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.1
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=X+id
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Mike Gilbert-2
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were *very*
> strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo main tree
> - - and a definite frustration threshold that one had to overcome. With a couple
> of packages in Sunrise, doing the quizzes was a piece of cake though.

As someone who did some user contribution to Sunrise, I never really
liked it, and I think it was a terrible way to introduce people to the
dev side of Gentoo. That workflow just plain sucked, and the "better
QA standards" really just amounted to nitpicking trivial issues.

I am very glad we are giving people an easier way to contribute these days.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

grozin
In reply to this post by M. J. Everitt
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> My concern is for those people using sunrise packages (in whatever
> broken state) who might suddenly discover they have completly lost
> access to the overlay 'overnight'. Whilst I'm not expecting the
> server/repo suddenly to disappear .. there should be a planned migration
> path for any users lingering on packages in this overlay to get the
> package into maintainership of some form if at all possible. As such it
> remains a semi-official Gentoo repository ..
One example: I have 1 package installed from sunrise, app-misc/gpspoint. I
used it regularly until recently (after buying a good android phone, I use
osmand on it instead of my old garmin navigator; but this navigator is
still working, and I might want to download some track from it, in which
case I'll need gpspoint). OK, I can commit it to the main tree. But I'm
sure there are other working packages in sunrise, too.

Andrey

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of the Sunrise project

Matthew Marchese
In reply to this post by Anthony G. Basile
On 06/07/2016 02:29 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:

> Its time to retire the project.  Put out a last call for anyone to adopt
> it.  If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive.
> Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so.
I agree. We should be a better job at trimming the fat in various ways.
I just looked at this project recently and was scared.
-maffy

12