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 14152138247 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:56:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C27DEE0C1E; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:56:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com (mail-ig0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0F2AE0BA5 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:56:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id c10so8248276igq.0 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:56:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=5U3XiacvYYeqSHgW7iy9dVBu/iPaurOJ7pOj+5O/ALQ=; b=YXi5aWT15kvthzNsPSiWN0TdqiEyitKBHziT3vjZSUEFJ5MqDhbF20K3NquyEUGx4a jzzzHa9zQWNK3jqN280Ux54ukRyopt1xWSVwb3LRBEaUyU5fIO+VZTTB62fGrLYlulXz e1VlakL9ahjG5MDy7zdnc/UDgdRYiNjSKJjSilG3T0fHbRBRQKO5bpanhlqJLbQJo3fb GjI4zz0xgCmrAs6hJ0VZ1wGjopNykpTWbQbsgk5d/KfOcicRESh7rRMvUlClxQ4u8SJ4 PBME+6kyk1eYgRig9QSOJ4VRdzDU338FxWG+hG6HpIKhZVuHT1r8R3B/mvVwazKGGri4 AWDg== 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 X-Received: by 10.50.119.197 with SMTP id kw5mr11027456igb.28.1389895010283; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:56:50 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.73.99 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:56:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140116155407.13492.qmail@stuge.se> 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> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:56:50 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ht5xTP8xLmiBSutsm_Yn67R-LHs Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: d933f564-eeb3-4e89-a4e8-31d321aa71f8 X-Archives-Hash: fa3e8445b7352c7e76b6a9bf84aac2b4 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Sergey Popov wrote: >> As i said earlier, problem begins when we NEED to stabilize >> something to prevent breakages and arch teams are slow. > > Isn't that simply a matter of assigning and respecting priority on > bugs properly? Are you suggesting that we should forbid people from working on lower-priority bugs anytime a higher-priority bug exists? That would probably just reduce the amount of contribution. You can't force anybody to work on the higher-priority ones. Sure, in an ideal world people work on the high-priority stuff. However, often somebody either prefers to work on a lower-priority bug, or finds it easier to do so. Simply marking a bug as high-priority doesn't make the bug get resolved. Bottom line is that people work on what they work on. Unless you can find people to work on the stuff that you want done you need to make work go away. Rich