Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting Important Updates To Users

[Stuart Herbert <stuart@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2646 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 18:11 +0100, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Doesn't make much sense to me. The biggest benefit from --news over other, 
> traditional channels would be that it's linked to the tree, meaning, if you 
> emerge a new kernel version which doesn't contain devfs anymore, the ebuild 
> would call something like enews ${FILESDIR}/blah which would then somehow make 
> emerge mention it. 

[snip]

This isn't the problem I'm trying to get solved.  

You're talking about a reactive news system, telling users about the
consequences of their actions.  I'm after a pro-active news system,
telling users about what will change, so that they have the information
they need to plan upgrades.

We need both.  

But anyone using Gentoo outside of their bedroom or classroom needs to
know what we are planning, and when those plans will happen.

> Information that doesn't belong to a specific package or a specific version 
> should be sent to gentoo-announce IMO, we really don't need portage to be more 
> than a package manager.

I'm firmly of the opinion that gentoo-announce doesn't solve the problem
as effectively as delivering news via emerge sync.  People have to go
sign up to gentoo-announce.  It seems unlikely that you'll get a high
percentage of the user base doing this.  My personal experience with
opensource projects is that you'll get 10-20% of users signing up, tops.

I don't think delivering news to just 20% of our userbase is a
fit-for-purpose solution.

Delivering the news via Portage has the distinct advantage that it will
reach every user who types 'emerge sync'.

> Reading gentoo-announce should be mandatory.

I think that statement ignores a basic human truth - that not every user
likes using mailing lists.  Just like not every user likes using forums.

> If a user breaks his system because 
> he didn't know about an important fact due to his lazyness, that's not our 
> problem. Of course they will still bitch, so let's introduce RESOLVED RTF_ML_.

Mmm ... but I think you haven't understood the original problem from
their perspective.  We're not dealing with users (or devs for that
matter! it's not just users who've been caught out by our changes) who
are lazy.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                         stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                  http://www.gentoo.org/
                                              http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]