On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 14:47 +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
> remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
> still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do.
> In my years of monitoring firstname.lastname@example.org, we've received the most
> complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a
> way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation,
> perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, "for advanced users only" or "use at
> your own risk"?
The problem is that we (releng) cannot possibly keep up with the number
of possible bugs that are being introduced via USE flags. It used to be
that if someone introduced a USE flag into *any* package that would show
up under "system" that they would make sure the damn thing would pass a
stage1->stage3 process. Now, we're receiving bugs and emails quite
often from problems where things like "hal" are being pulled in to
system, which is a major problem, as it requires a configured kernel,
which, of course, doesn't exist at this point.
As I am now not only the Release Engineering lead, but also the x86
Release Coordinator, I am fielding nearly 100% of these issues.
I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DO OTHER PEOPLE'S QA FOR THEM.
Because of this, *I* requested to have the instructions removed. They
were causing more problems than they are worth, and since *not a single
person* stepped up when I asked for help after beejay left, I'm just
going to do what I need to do with the things that I maintain. If this
means requesting Handbook changes to reduce my workload, I have and will
continue this trend.
Personally, I would like to see stage1 and stage2 go away completely.
They serve no real purpose anymore after the changes we have made to the
stages to include a complete /var/db before 2005.0's release. They take
longer to use for installation, and give you exactly 0 advantages over a
stage3 that cannot be done with a stage3 tarball itself. I would have
no problem with us documenting these more advanced methods somewhere,
but I would have a definite problem with resurrecting the obsolete
materials just because a few users that are ignorant to the actual
issues are flaming and otherwise provoking email@example.com with this.
Besides, there's *nothing* stopping a user from continuing to use a
stage1 tarball. There's *nothing* stopping a user from taking a stage3
tarball, the example catalyst specs, and building their own stage1
tarball. We aren't taking away their "freedom" in any way. However,
anything that we release, we *are* expected to do QA on and make sure it
works, along with resolving bugs. Almost all of these bugs are
user-created due to their lack of knowledge of USE flags, Gentoo in
general, and the bootstrap process. We cannot expect every user that
might think about using a stage1 tarball to know this. That means
they'll be filing bugs. I'll be getting them. I came up with a
resolution for these bugs and enacted it. While it will not prevent the
problem 100%, it will reduce my workload greatly.
I truly do appreciate and adore our users, but if a few people are going
to get pissed off and leave over this. Fine. Let them. They're
probably not the kind of people we want associated with us anyway.
> ----- Forwarded message from Varun Dhussa <varun.dhussa@...> -----
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:50:07 +0530
> From: Varun Dhussa <varun.dhussa@...>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Complaint
> Gentoo claims to be giving freedom. However, I was dissapointed to see that
> the stage 1 had been removed from gentoo 2005. Infact, even the handbook
> makes no refference of it. This takes Gentoo another step closer to other
> distros like Ubuntu.
> A dissapointed user,
> Varun Dhussa
> ----- End forwarded message -----
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer