* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
@ 2014-01-15 11:40 99% ` Sergey Popov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Sergey Popov @ 2014-01-15 11:40 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3387 bytes --]
15.01.2014 03:49, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Thoughts?
>
> In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices:
>
> 1. "We do nothing"; which means that as a side effect either less
> often a version would be picked for stabilization or stabilizations
> will just take longer due to a longer queue. The question here is
> whether the queue is actually growing; to get a quick idea, we could
> compare the amount of bugs we have now compared to those of last time.
>
> Advantage: We keep the same policy and quality of stabilization.
>
> Disadvantage: Stable runs further behind. Waiting time. Frustration.
>
> Resources: We need to find more people for the arch teams.
>
> 2. "We crowd source it"; which means we tackle the 'low manpower'
> problem itself, we invite at a larger scale feedback for packages in
> one or another way. This ranges from a simple reminder when merging a
> non-stable package to report back whether it is working, to a more
> large scale new website effort where this can be done much more
> organized; but that's a whole discussion on its own.
>
> Advantage: Power to the community. Need for arch teams decreases.
>
> Disadvantage: Stabilization quality could drop. Enough feedback?
>
> Resources: We need to patch up and/or write enough to pull
> attention from the user that there aid is needed.
>
> 3. "We make stable mean less"; which means that we accept the 'low
> manpower' problem, this would as a consequence thus mean that because
> we cannot put in enough effort to deem everything stable anymore. The
> word 'stable' would thus mean less, instead of 'thoroughly tested by
> a separate person' it becomes 'tested by the same maintainer'.
>
> Advantage: Gentoo becomes slightly more bleeding edge.
>
> Disadvantage: Problematic for important packages were stabilization
> is really needed; 'stability' of some user application
> has a much smaller meaning than on a library shared
> between multiple applications of the user.
>
> Resources: Less resources used, though it might yield more bugs.
>
> Of course this is not meant to limit other choices, there might be
> others and I hope people bring them forward; as a closing word it feels
> hard to decide here, especially since it can have quite an effect on
> the distribution. As put above neither option seems convincing, neither
> option seems like it is without risk; does anyone have a different view?
>
> Unless we only do a small version of those options, like changing a
> minor detail instead of pushing it through at once; which could be a
> more safe step forward. Which smaller options do we have here?
>
> If at all, maybe experiment something on one arch to start with?
>
As i said earlier for similar proposals - the one option that i see here
to make all things going better - to recruit more people in arch
teams/arch testers. Other options lead us to nowhere, when stable will
be eliminated or transformed into fake.
--
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2014-01-14 21:37 [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy William Hubbs
2014-01-14 23:49 ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-15 11:40 99% ` Sergey Popov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox