| 1 |
Mark Loeser schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> said: |
| 3 |
>> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to |
| 5 |
>>> magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* |
| 6 |
>>> . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 |
| 7 |
>>> team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing |
| 8 |
>>> up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?! |
| 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 |
I disagree with you. Unstable/TESTING tree is for new packages and package versions, which where |
| 31 |
until then not widely tested. With adding them, you can get more feedback and can filter out |
| 32 |
versions, which might be good enough to go into stable. THEN you should write the needed details for |
| 33 |
an upgrade to this version. And people using TESTING are free to tell about their upgrade and |
| 34 |
helping with improving the information. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
But there are and will always be versions, which will never meet the stable tree and are only there |
| 37 |
for users, who want to test the latest version. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
And our manpower is limited. It would be some nice ideal world, if everything even in TESTING tree |
| 40 |
would be completly documented. But if you require something like that, please show us the people, |
| 41 |
who have enough time and knowledge to be able to do this part. I have only a limited amount of time. |
| 42 |
And if i am required to write more docs, it would mean that i can maintain less packages/help less |
| 43 |
projects/users/potential new devs preparing their quizzes. I bet its the same for most of our team. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
In the end, i require TESTING users to be able to recover and to be able to report bugs via |
| 47 |
bugzilla, even if the packages are not fully documented as written previously. And in this special |
| 48 |
case, openrc had a sane default for the useflag, a useflag description and a warning, if the useflag |
| 49 |
is disabled. And until now, we only had exactly 1 user, who complained about the default version, |
| 50 |
but without giving us enough details neither here nor via bugzilla. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
So in this part, i fully support Matthias (zzam) and Mike (vapier): |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
A sane version with good default and basic information was added (thanks Matthias for that!) and it |
| 55 |
seems to work without problems this way for all users except those, who are unable or unwilling to |
| 56 |
fill a bug with needed details. And we are not able to help those users. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives