From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323D7138247 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 974D7E0C83; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ea0-f170.google.com (mail-ea0-f170.google.com [209.85.215.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89E1DE0C7C for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:19:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ea0-f170.google.com with SMTP id k10so1376055eaj.1 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:19:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pD0EVN7YVi/eoNJbqMP6xy86F83pu3wgk03tH2M+FZk=; b=y/PlzgHOSkGo6yHciZZi09ZudA36nNO82t8jPp79TBT3/ieMRKgZhkVn2rQAOROZys fdaZqEUMEOHximbJEoxnYnkslHklSjD2YSQAoDLcMsuEV8pd34s2aEYXdYsPpdbuuEM1 V9LhRPTOjrLgcVRpx4PhMgSy5xf8Nm/9NzekJ40ckmYFqEIPmvCCOgyjBVFQq+ca4Q5e /2ApgTAdSEzf28A9w8kIUoRBL5CA8BNuubuj90jng8cf4BRd/CxSOOcqreli2ES0tKl3 KkEEJx3z4fxsAhO77wVfaJrV9nXoqiSCQucV5knFnmLidpzC6kVgF6NC1zSibfyBZgOs /Z9w== X-Received: by 10.14.99.66 with SMTP id w42mr14415845eef.63.1389903557168; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:19:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.0.41] (196-210-126-57.dynamic.isadsl.co.za. [196.210.126.57]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x2sm18353841eeo.8.2014.01.16.12.19.15 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:19:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52D83EAA.4020300@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:18:50 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 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] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <20140115004928.1fae6bf9@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D673A4.2080508@gentoo.org> <20140115180405.1cd06453@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D77A35.8080509@gentoo.org> <20140116155407.13492.qmail@stuge.se> <52D81F1F.7050406@gmail.com> <20140116182636.25879.qmail@stuge.se> In-Reply-To: <20140116182636.25879.qmail@stuge.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c6e53801-c613-4b2b-8523-40abbcdb6fe8 X-Archives-Hash: 444928f3d00eab957d62de93888b0844 On 16/01/2014 20:26, Peter Stuge wrote: > 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. :) When relying on folk's goodwill (like in the open source world), I find there are really only two priorities 1. the bug breaks stuff 2. everything else with possibly a #3 - stuff that doesn't matter, can be done whenever. Gentoo devs have shown time and again that they do take #1 seriously. After all, they are themselves Gentoo users. The team that is dealing with the bug may of course assign priority as they see fit as long as they mostly agree on what it is. I reckon the cardinal rule is "avoid as much as possible having priority set by someone who is not solving the problem". I think that comes close in my words to what you are saying. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com