| 1 |
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Thoughts? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
1. "We do nothing"; which means that as a side effect either less |
| 9 |
often a version would be picked for stabilization or stabilizations |
| 10 |
will just take longer due to a longer queue. The question here is |
| 11 |
whether the queue is actually growing; to get a quick idea, we could |
| 12 |
compare the amount of bugs we have now compared to those of last time. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Advantage: We keep the same policy and quality of stabilization. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Disadvantage: Stable runs further behind. Waiting time. Frustration. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Resources: We need to find more people for the arch teams. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
2. "We crowd source it"; which means we tackle the 'low manpower' |
| 21 |
problem itself, we invite at a larger scale feedback for packages in |
| 22 |
one or another way. This ranges from a simple reminder when merging a |
| 23 |
non-stable package to report back whether it is working, to a more |
| 24 |
large scale new website effort where this can be done much more |
| 25 |
organized; but that's a whole discussion on its own. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Advantage: Power to the community. Need for arch teams decreases. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Disadvantage: Stabilization quality could drop. Enough feedback? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Resources: We need to patch up and/or write enough to pull |
| 32 |
attention from the user that there aid is needed. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
3. "We make stable mean less"; which means that we accept the 'low |
| 35 |
manpower' problem, this would as a consequence thus mean that because |
| 36 |
we cannot put in enough effort to deem everything stable anymore. The |
| 37 |
word 'stable' would thus mean less, instead of 'thoroughly tested by |
| 38 |
a separate person' it becomes 'tested by the same maintainer'. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Advantage: Gentoo becomes slightly more bleeding edge. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Disadvantage: Problematic for important packages were stabilization |
| 43 |
is really needed; 'stability' of some user application |
| 44 |
has a much smaller meaning than on a library shared |
| 45 |
between multiple applications of the user. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Resources: Less resources used, though it might yield more bugs. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Of course this is not meant to limit other choices, there might be |
| 50 |
others and I hope people bring them forward; as a closing word it feels |
| 51 |
hard to decide here, especially since it can have quite an effect on |
| 52 |
the distribution. As put above neither option seems convincing, neither |
| 53 |
option seems like it is without risk; does anyone have a different view? |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Unless we only do a small version of those options, like changing a |
| 56 |
minor detail instead of pushing it through at once; which could be a |
| 57 |
more safe step forward. Which smaller options do we have here? |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
If at all, maybe experiment something on one arch to start with? |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
With kind regards, |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 65 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 68 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 69 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives