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

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3081 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:52:47 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org> wrote:

> The idea moves the work around, it doesn't lessen the workload at all.

It is an idea to solve your actual problem, which isn't workload.

> You can easily find 7 people who have an armv7, and even v6, since the
> rpi is quite popular.

They are easier to find than someone that has everything.

> Getting them into the arch team and willing to run stable and
> actually test programs is a whole other story, which lead to you
> saying:
> 
> "People that have certain architectures can just add themselves, no
> extra work again."

Which is for people already on the arm arch; consider the context you
quote this from, rather than assuming what is not explicitly stated.

> What you've thrown out as a possible solution is akin to taking a pile
> of peas on the plate and moving them around the plate so that the pile
> doesn't look so big.  

In other words, using separation to organize them properly.

> It doesn't change the amount of work, but you do need to look in more
> places for the work.

Which you can collect back into one place.

> Finding people with the hardware is the main issue, and I think I
> mentioned before, some people are simply unwilling to invest in
> "slow" hardware, so we have to rely on the people who DO have it.
> And if that means things take longer to stable, well, why is that an
> issue?  Stable is supposed to be that - stable.  

That is because you only look for people that have all the hardware.

> > > if you aren't willing to put in the work, don't expect others to.
> > 
> > If you are unwilling to work towards solutions, don't expect others
> > to.
> > 
> > > And yes, I see what you mean now re: my reply seeming off - it
> > > would seem when I hit group reply, for some reason, Evolution is
> > > putting Peter Stuge into the CC, and not Tom Wijsman (despite
> > > hitting group reply from your email.  Maybe there should have
> > > been more testing of Gnome 3.8 before it was stabled on x86...
> > 
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
> > 
> 
> I don't care of "reply to" is considered harmful,

It however caused problems with your e-mail.

> I care that
> something that worked with the previous stable is suddenly not
> working with the new stable.  It obviously shows that it wasn't
> tested properly, and yet was marked stable.

Which is your actual problem that we are trying to solve here.

> So, as QA, shouldn't you be doing something about that, rather than
> pointing to some URLs on the web, telling me I'm in the wrong for
> using the option that is supposed to handle that properly in my
> stable software?

The problem lies in a different place than the software itself.

-- 
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 --]