* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
@ 2014-01-16 18:42 99% ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Rich Freeman @ 2014-01-16 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> I certainly don't think the work needs to go away if the work is
> considered to be important. It's fine to have open bugs for years
> in the absence of a good solution.
I get what you're saying, though there is still a cost to leaving the
bug open to years. In this case it means an old package stays in the
tree marked as stable. That either costs maintainers the effort to
keep it work, or they don't bother to keep in working in which case
users get saddled with issues.
I am completely in support of making use of the priority field - if
something is causing issues by all means call attention to it. I bet
it would /help/ with the problem, but it won't make it go away.
Rich
^ 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 ` Sergey Popov
2014-01-15 17:04 ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-16 6:20 ` Sergey Popov
2014-01-16 15:54 ` Peter Stuge
2014-01-16 17:56 ` Rich Freeman
2014-01-16 18:11 ` Peter Stuge
2014-01-16 18:42 99% ` Rich Freeman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox