| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 06:45:10PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> We've been discussing this @FOSDEM too. My suggestion was that any bug that |
| 4 |
> visibly hurts stable users should always be considered at least MAJOR in |
| 5 |
> bugzilla. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> To expand on this a bit more |
| 8 |
> * a stable update that makes the computer nonfunctional is definitely BLOCKER |
| 9 |
> (and should be reverted in CVS immediately when it becomes known, at latest |
| 10 |
> when it is understood, by anyone who is around at the time and can do so) |
| 11 |
> * a non-functional stable package in the system set should be CRITICAL. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Just my 2ct, but it is really important not to hurt stable users. This is how |
| 14 |
> we lose most people. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
The rolling way we stabilize the packages makes the stable tree pretty |
| 17 |
much fragile to breakages and stuff. This is because you cannot predict |
| 18 |
what is going to happen to the rest of the tree if you stabilize a newer |
| 19 |
package. It may have unpredictable consequences to the rest of the |
| 20 |
packages. My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a |
| 21 |
snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to |
| 22 |
stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise ) for a couple of |
| 23 |
weeks and then replace the existing stable tree. Of course this requires |
| 24 |
automated script testing, hardware facilities etc etc that we don't have |
| 25 |
so claiming that stable tree is "stable" is quite wrong. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
Archives