Raphael Hertzog | 12 Mar 20:17 2013
Picon

Are there problematic infrastructure or processes in Debian?

Hi,

this is a question to all candidates.

Debian's infrastructure and processes have grown organically over the
years, with all the strengths and weaknesses that it implies. Sometimes
it's a good idea to step back and look whether some of those need
to be amended/replaced/dropped/etc.

Based on your own experience, which infrastructure(s) or process(es) would
benefit from significant changes?

Are there infrastructures or processes that we're (still) lacking and that
could make a significant difference in the work of Debian's contributors?

Cheers,

PS: I tried to avoid being negative in my questions because I believe it's
important to respect the work of whovever created the infrastructure/process
you might have in mind, but the questions could be rephrased as “What sucks
in Debian in terms of infrastructure and/or processes?”.
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
(Continue reading)

Lucas Nussbaum | 12 Mar 22:28 2013
Picon

Re: Are there problematic infrastructure or processes in Debian?

Hi,

[ Your question is similar in some ways to a question asked earlier by
Lars Wirzenius.  See my answer at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2013/03/msg00020.html ]

On 12/03/13 at 20:17 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> this is a question to all candidates.
> 
> Debian's infrastructure and processes have grown organically over the
> years, with all the strengths and weaknesses that it implies. Sometimes
> it's a good idea to step back and look whether some of those need
> to be amended/replaced/dropped/etc.

Indeed.

I think that the organic growth of Debian's infrastructure and processes
is a great strength of Debian. It's technically very easy to experiment
an idea by starting to develop a service, and get it linked from
important places such as the PTS so that everybody can benefit from it.
That's something we should encourage.

> Based on your own experience, which infrastructure(s) or process(es) would
> benefit from significant changes?

Before answering your question, I'd like to state that the situation has
generally improved greatly over the last years. There are still some
grey areas, but when I started contributing to Debian, there were entire
(Continue reading)

Moray Allan | 15 Mar 16:10 2013

Re: Are there problematic infrastructure or processes in Debian?

On 2013-03-12 22:17, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Debian's infrastructure and processes have grown organically over the
> years, with all the strengths and weaknesses that it implies. 
> Sometimes
> it's a good idea to step back and look whether some of those need
> to be amended/replaced/dropped/etc.
> Based on your own experience, which infrastructure(s) or process(es) 
> would
> benefit from significant changes?
> Are there infrastructures or processes that we're (still) lacking and 
> that
> could make a significant difference in the work of Debian's 
> contributors?

Infrastructure

I should say first that our core infrastructure such as the Debian 
packaging and build system, and, for example, the feature set of the Bug 
Tracking System, are already extremely high-quality.

Of course, there are some extensions to our overall infrastructure that 
would be nice to have, in line with list discussions that you know 
about, but if elected DPL I would not currently see a strong reason to 
try to intervene in this area.

I agree that we shouldn't leave our infrastructure frozen, but continue 
to develop it, but I think that's already happening, with new tools like 
UDD appearing fairly frequently.

One aspect that is both a strength and weakness of our infrastructure 
(Continue reading)

Gergely Nagy | 16 Mar 12:05 2013

Re: Are there problematic infrastructure or processes in Debian?

Raphael Hertzog <hertzog <at> debian.org> writes:

> Debian's infrastructure and processes have grown organically over the
> years, with all the strengths and weaknesses that it implies. Sometimes
> it's a good idea to step back and look whether some of those need
> to be amended/replaced/dropped/etc.
>
> Based on your own experience, which infrastructure(s) or process(es) would
> benefit from significant changes?
>
> Are there infrastructures or processes that we're (still) lacking and that
> could make a significant difference in the work of Debian's contributors?

As far as infrastructures go, what I find a bit troublesome is that our
tools are sometimes too diverse: too many languages, too few people to
understand and improve them. This is also a project-wide problem of not
being able to make use of our human resources better.

This, in turn, leads to situations where some of our tools look like
they're stuck in the past millennia, which is quite a bummer when it
comes to attracting new contributors, especially when said tool is
something they'll see early on. (Yes, I'm talking about the BTS, which
is a terrific thing, and I wouldn't trade it for anything else, but from
a usability point of view, it is behind times. It would help
tremendously if we had more people working on it, as one person can't
cover all aspects.)

To attract new people, we need a bit more than technical excellence, we
need to impress them, and impress them fast. This - as blasphemous as it
may sound - may require our user-facing tools to look nice, and be
(Continue reading)


Gmane