| 1 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote: |
| 3 |
> > All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to |
| 4 |
> > magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* |
| 5 |
> > . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 |
| 6 |
> > team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing |
| 7 |
> > up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?! |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone. we're talking |
| 10 |
> about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only |
| 11 |
> available in unstable. expecting everything in testing to be documented up |
| 12 |
> front is unreasonable. no one is saying the stuff shouldnt be documented, |
| 13 |
> just that complete user friendly coverage is not a requirement for unstable. |
| 14 |
> your comments here dont really apply to bleeding edge -- they certainly apply |
| 15 |
> to stable though. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'd say this isn't correct. Unstable isn't a pure testing playground. |
| 18 |
its meant for packages that should be considered for stable. As such, |
| 19 |
we should make sure that we get the documentation needed ready, so we |
| 20 |
can make sure that it is correct for people that are testing the upgrade |
| 21 |
path for us. It then gives us a chance to correct our documentation |
| 22 |
before it goes stable. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
All this comes down to is laziness in documenting changes, and forcing |
| 25 |
stuff upon our users. Neither of those things is good, and if everyone |
| 26 |
thinks that's the status quo...that really should change. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Mark Loeser |
| 31 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 32 |
email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 33 |
web - http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives