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

[Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se>]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> "Respecting bug priority" feels like that corporate BS I have to put up
> with every day.

Gentoo is incorporated so maybe that fits. ;)

On a more serious note, please try to understand what I meant rather
than just what I wrote.

I wrote both "assigning" and "respecting"; your gripe with "corporate BS"
may be a result of how priority was assigned to your bugs, and likely
amplified if you can't do much to influence that process. If you only
get a priority shoved down your throat you of course can't really
respect it.

For priority to have any meaning on bugs.g.o there would need to be
some buy-in among developers to actually want to work together to
assign the proper priority to each bug.

Bug trackers aren't management command and control tools, they are
hive minds which just remember what workers agree on anyway.


> the only bugs that get any attention at all are ones where some
> fool of a manager thinks he can shout louder than anyone else.

> We have nothing to offer maintainers except fuzzy-feel-good and
> recognition; we have to trust them to do the right thing.

Nobody will do the right thing if they don't know what it is.

Recognition can certainly communicate that higher priority bugs are
more important, but honestly, I wouldn't want someone who needs to
be told that explicitly on my (the Gentoo) team in the first place..

Disclaimer for anyone who might find this upsetting: Of course people
always have limited scope, and it is perfectly fine if high priority
bugs can simply not be fixed by whoever has time to work on bugs at
any given moment.

IMO, closing bugs without having the right fix has negative value.

I know that it can be depressing and demotivating to have too many
bugs, just like it is to live in a too messy room, but I really do
think that the best solution is simply to pick one thing up at a
time. It may take a long time, but in the end the room is clean. :)


//Peter