From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1My71o-0007Rj-Pt for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:48:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A83E6E08A6; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tommyserver.de (unknown [85.14.198.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458B0E08A6 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (Q4455.q.pppool.de [89.53.68.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tommyserver.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B82A640D198 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:48:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4AD600E2.50909@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:48:34 +0200 From: Thomas Sachau Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree References: <200910091957.09193.zzam@gentoo.org> <4AD4E907.5060405@gentoo.org> <20091013163052.11d25cec@angelstorm> <200910132017.54281.vapier@gentoo.org> <20091014003335.GA20367@aerie.halcy0n.com> In-Reply-To: <20091014003335.GA20367@aerie.halcy0n.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=211CA2D4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigD30741F247AD952F8EEEA5D5" X-Archives-Salt: 1b2752f0-7ddc-4c73-8bb2-99f54bc50003 X-Archives-Hash: 40d3672187c0b77e7a31c9c503869452 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigD30741F247AD952F8EEEA5D5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark Loeser schrieb: > Mike Frysinger said: >> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote: >>> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users t= o >>> magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in adv= ance* >>> . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the = X11 >>> team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first wr= iting >>> up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?! >> we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone. we're talk= ing=20 >> about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is onl= y=20 >> available in unstable. expecting everything in testing to be document= ed up=20 >> front is unreasonable. no one is saying the stuff shouldnt be documen= ted,=20 >> just that complete user friendly coverage is not a requirement for uns= table. =20 >> your comments here dont really apply to bleeding edge -- they certainl= y apply=20 >> to stable though. >=20 > I'd say this isn't correct. Unstable isn't a pure testing playground. > its meant for packages that should be considered for stable. As such, > we should make sure that we get the documentation needed ready, so we > can make sure that it is correct for people that are testing the upgrad= e > path for us. It then gives us a chance to correct our documentation > before it goes stable. >=20 > All this comes down to is laziness in documenting changes, and forcing > stuff upon our users. Neither of those things is good, and if everyone= > thinks that's the status quo...that really should change. >=20 >=20 I disagree with you. Unstable/TESTING tree is for new packages and packag= e versions, which where until then not widely tested. With adding them, you can get more feedback= and can filter out versions, which might be good enough to go into stable. THEN you should w= rite the needed details for an upgrade to this version. And people using TESTING are free to tell abo= ut their upgrade and helping with improving the information. But there are and will always be versions, which will never meet the stab= le tree and are only there for users, who want to test the latest version. And our manpower is limited. It would be some nice ideal world, if everyt= hing even in TESTING tree would be completly documented. But if you require something like that, pl= ease show us the people, who have enough time and knowledge to be able to do this part. I have onl= y a limited amount of time. And if i am required to write more docs, it would mean that i can maintai= n less packages/help less projects/users/potential new devs preparing their quizzes. I bet its the = same for most of our team. In the end, i require TESTING users to be able to recover and to be able = to report bugs via bugzilla, even if the packages are not fully documented as written previo= usly. And in this special case, openrc had a sane default for the useflag, a useflag description an= d a warning, if the useflag is disabled. And until now, we only had exactly 1 user, who complained ab= out the default version, but without giving us enough details neither here nor via bugzilla. So in this part, i fully support Matthias (zzam) and Mike (vapier): A sane version with good default and basic information was added (thanks = Matthias for that!) and it seems to work without problems this way for all users except those, who a= re unable or unwilling to fill a bug with needed details. And we are not able to help those users. --=20 Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer --------------enigD30741F247AD952F8EEEA5D5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEKAAYFAkrWAOgACgkQG7kqcTWJkGdMtQP7BC9mSHDJ8/R8GCA8JDit8Fv7 lk0m8MrDQQVb8PZIyxTadgVmCA1oum8WEMBMsD3DcbxLcGTuPqYlFbREMCrO0CmH mLVp92ONgrs0SXAA+T3lSs6Q1gif4VITxO6FGtpmQgIrFOpWWhFCBbDZdbpq+L+g 2zy15JGHYKCNz427Arg= =KcTL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigD30741F247AD952F8EEEA5D5--