Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: williamh@g.o
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:50:33
Message-Id: 20140115004928.1fae6bf9@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600
2 William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
4 > Thoughts?
6 In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices:
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.
14 Advantage: We keep the same policy and quality of stabilization.
16 Disadvantage: Stable runs further behind. Waiting time. Frustration.
18 Resources: We need to find more people for the arch teams.
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.
27 Advantage: Power to the community. Need for arch teams decreases.
29 Disadvantage: Stabilization quality could drop. Enough feedback?
31 Resources: We need to patch up and/or write enough to pull
32 attention from the user that there aid is needed.
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'.
40 Advantage: Gentoo becomes slightly more bleeding edge.
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.
47 Resources: Less resources used, though it might yield more bugs.
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?
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?
59 If at all, maybe experiment something on one arch to start with?
61 --
62 With kind regards,
64 Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
65 Gentoo Developer
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


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o>