Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3019 bytes --]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Thoughts?

In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices:

  1. "We do nothing"; which means that as a side effect either less
  often a version would be picked for stabilization or stabilizations
  will just take longer due to a longer queue. The question here is
  whether the queue is actually growing; to get a quick idea, we could
  compare the amount of bugs we have now compared to those of last time.

  Advantage:    We keep the same policy and quality of stabilization.

  Disadvantage: Stable runs further behind. Waiting time. Frustration.

  Resources:    We need to find more people for the arch teams.

  2. "We crowd source it"; which means we tackle the 'low manpower'
  problem itself, we invite at a larger scale feedback for packages in
  one or another way. This ranges from a simple reminder when merging a
  non-stable package to report back whether it is working, to a more
  large scale new website effort where this can be done much more
  organized; but that's a whole discussion on its own.

  Advantage:    Power to the community. Need for arch teams decreases.

  Disadvantage: Stabilization quality could drop. Enough feedback?

  Resources:    We need to patch up and/or write enough to pull
                attention from the user that there aid is needed.

  3. "We make stable mean less"; which means that we accept the 'low
  manpower' problem, this would as a consequence thus mean that because
  we cannot put in enough effort to deem everything stable anymore. The
  word 'stable' would thus mean less, instead of 'thoroughly tested by
  a separate person' it becomes 'tested by the same maintainer'.

  Advantage:    Gentoo becomes slightly more bleeding edge.

  Disadvantage: Problematic for important packages were stabilization 
                is really needed; 'stability' of some user application
                has a much smaller meaning than on a library shared
                between multiple applications of the user.

  Resources:    Less resources used, though it might yield more bugs.

Of course this is not meant to limit other choices, there might be
others and I hope people bring them forward; as a closing word it feels
hard to decide here, especially since it can have quite an effect on
the distribution. As put above neither option seems convincing, neither
option seems like it is without risk; does anyone have a different view?

Unless we only do a small version of those options, like changing a
minor detail instead of pushing it through at once; which could be a
more safe step forward. Which smaller options do we have here?

If at all, maybe experiment something on one arch to start with?

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]