Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:58:59 +0100
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:41:58 +0400
> Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Cause it seems that not everybody agrees with policy that we are
> > trying to make.
> 
> Because it's impossible to create a simple policy to solve complex
> problems.

Why is it impossible to do that?

> It's a waste of time

Introduction of the complex problem is also a waste of time; should we
stop stabilizing because of that? No, we'll waste our times instead.

Let's waste it efficiently while we're at it, instead of holding up
important packages with stabilization of packages that don't need it;
it can turn that waste of time in much more useful time.

> and it's going to break more than you set out to fix.

It's going to fix more than what was set out to break.

> Use common sense => communicate => resolve issues individually.

Use proper reasoning => discuss respectfully => resolve in team spirit.

> If you can't figure things out amongst yourselves, put the matter to
> this mailing list

That is exactly what was done here.

> instead of bringing it to some kind of "tribunal" -

A tribunal is needed for decision making that leads to a resolution.

> more visibility gets you more attention from volunteers and gets
> actual work done more quickly. Gentoo users and developers (should)
> just want to scratch their itches - 

How many people have joined the arch teams since this thread?

How many people have left since this thread?

What about compared to the last time we had a thread like this?

And the times before that?

> not have endless arguments about them.

In respectful discussions arguments are not endless; besides that, a
policy is in place now which prototypes one side of the arguments. If
that is found to break things (with evidencing commits), or there is
sufficiently backed up reasoning or a reasonable group of people
objecting; then I'm pretty sure it can be turned around through QA, or
when QA insists on not cooperating it can be done through the Council.

> Can we go back to fixing bugs now?

Yes, here are 157 interesting open bugs filed more than 3 months ago:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?f1=creation_ts&keywords=STABLEREQ&keywords_type=allwords&o1=lessthan&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v1=2013-10-05

Which are part of 559 open bugs filed all time (+ 31 missing STABLEREQ):

https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&field0-0-0=keywords&limit=0&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=STABLEREQ

On top of that there are a lot more versions that are considerable for
stabilization; which can be identified using `iamlate`, I guess just
this mention here might get some people to check up what they maintain.

Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is insufficient?

https://bugs.gentoo.org/chart.cgi?category=-All-&datefrom=&dateto=&label0=All%20Open&line0=320&name=320&subcategory=-All-&action=wrap

PS: As a bonus, here's a nice view of our stabilization queue over time:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/chart.cgi?category=Gentoo+Linux&subcategory=Keywording+and+Stabilization&name=639&label0=All+Open&line0=639&datefrom=&dateto=&action-wrap=Chart+This+List

Notice how the graph goes down near the dates the threads were made;
although, if you would draw an average it would appear to be growing.

-- 
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