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

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2126 bytes --]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:50:30 -0500
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 01/14/2014 07:13 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>
> >> For users, both options are worse than the status quo.
> > 
> > When you do nothing then things are bound to get worse, under the
> > assumption that manpower doesn't change as well as the assumption
> > that the queue fills faster than stabilization bugs get added to it.
> > 
> > As a result of this, stable will eventually become broken. It is up
> > to you as well as us whether to consider it to be broken right now.
> > Will it be in a month from now? What about in a year?
> > 
> > Will we wait for hell? Or try to prepare and/or fix it now?
> > 
> > Maybe there are other options if these can be deemed as being worse.
> > 
> 
> As I mentioned in a reply to William, right now I can decide when
> stuff is broken and keyword the newer versions.

As in the mail I send seconds ago, I could complete this sentence with
"... because I know stabilaziton has lagged / worsened"; but how does
the user know of that?

If we keep things the same we might consider to bring out a news item
to at least make them aware of this, that news item might even be useful
to attract new arch testers at the same time.

> The proposal is to force me onto the new versions, which is strictly
> worse from my perspective.
>
> The whole issue of how much it sucks that stable is lagging is
> orthogonal.

That's one of the proposals, there are others; and staying where we are
is one of them, but we need to account for that (eg. recruit more,
perhaps a news item, ...) to keep that option a good choice.

Having stabilization eventually die due to the extra lag that collected
over time is just another way of forcing you onto the new versions,
which makes it less worse than you think it is; it might take a bit
longer and yield a slow and painful death.

-- 
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 --]