Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:11:40
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Rich Freeman
1 Rich Freeman wrote:
2 > >> As i said earlier, problem begins when we NEED to stabilize
3 > >> something to prevent breakages and arch teams are slow.
4 > >
5 > > Isn't that simply a matter of assigning and respecting priority on
6 > > bugs properly?
7 >
8 > Are you suggesting that we should forbid people from working on
9 > lower-priority bugs anytime a higher-priority bug exists?
11 No, of course not forbid.
13 I admit it's naïve but I can't believe that it would be neccessary.
14 I expect anyone with the slightest sense of responsibility to solve
15 problems in order of priority.
17 Individuals may have different priorities than Gentoo as a whole and
18 that is and must be fine, but in that case Gentoo's high priority
19 problems stay unsolved, and I do not at all think that it's
20 catastrophical to have unfixed high priority problems.
23 > You can't force anybody to work on the higher-priority ones.
25 Yes, you can't force anybody to do anything unless you motivate them,
26 usually with money. The state of Gentoo always did and always will
27 equal the sum of contributors' work.
30 > Bottom line is that people work on what they work on. Unless you can
31 > find people to work on the stuff that you want done you need to make
32 > work go away.
34 I certainly don't think the work needs to go away if the work is
35 considered to be important. It's fine to have open bugs for years
36 in the absence of a good solution.
38 Things happen when they happen. If someone cares then they fix and
39 ideally it is so easy for them to contribute the fix that they will.
41 If noone cares then bugs stay unfixed and then the bugs don't matter. ;)
44 //Peter


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>