1 |
El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 13:54 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
2 |
> Dnia 25 lipca 2017 11:18:21 CEST, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
> > El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 08:18 +0200, Hans de Graaff escribió: |
4 |
> > > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 23:22 +0000, Peter Stuge wrote: |
5 |
> > > > |
6 |
> > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > stable. |
9 |
> > > > |
10 |
> > > > [snip] |
11 |
> > > > |
12 |
> > > > I consider dev time a precious resource. |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > > If we were to drop stable I would have to start maintaining my own |
15 |
> > > stable lists to determine what would be ready to into production for |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > my |
18 |
> > > company. In production "works most of the time" and "good enough" |
19 |
> > > simply aren't good enough. |
20 |
> > > |
21 |
> > > I estimate that would at least equal the amount of time I'm currently |
22 |
> > > spending on Gentoo work, and consequently my contributions to Gentoo |
23 |
> > > would dwindle to a halt. Most likely I would start looking at other |
24 |
> > > solutions altogether. |
25 |
> > > |
26 |
> > > > More troubleshooting and fixing "hard" problems, less routine work. |
27 |
> > > |
28 |
> > > Except that some of that routine work is actually what I enjoy doing |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > in |
31 |
> > > Gentoo. I already get plenty of the other two in my day job. |
32 |
> > > |
33 |
> > > Hans |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > If stable goes away I will simply switch to other distribution and |
36 |
> > retire |
37 |
> |
38 |
> What's the "over my dead commit access" spirit? |
39 |
> |
40 |
|
41 |
Jumping from trying to maintain stable tree to arches dead for ages to drop all |
42 |
stable trees looks to me like a joke promoted by people that has never handled |
43 |
any stabilization request and saw on them how running a pure "testing" system is |
44 |
impossible on many conditions. It seems that some people think that if it fits |
45 |
ok for them, it will fit for all others like we were all using Gentoo for doing |
46 |
the same. |
47 |
|
48 |
I could of course deal with things in my personal computer like, for example, |
49 |
needing to run gcc-6 (current testing) and having tons of packages failing to |
50 |
build, or run python-3.6 with only a few subset of packages, or running latest |
51 |
ffmpeg with random packages going to fail with it, or many other issues that |
52 |
anyone doing some stabilization work would have noticed. But, of course, I |
53 |
cannot pretend that all the people using Gentoo systems for working or doing |
54 |
something productive and that for now rely on me for maintaining or helping them |
55 |
with the issues that could arise, will now be also forced to run systems that |
56 |
are likely going to break in different and new ways every time they pretend to |
57 |
update. |
58 |
|
59 |
I am also really surprised to see how we can jump from some people that were |
60 |
fighting in the past against we running automatic scripts that already existed |
61 |
to fill stabilization bug reports and CC arches after timeouts, to a new |
62 |
situation of "oh, testing tree is good enough for all the people". We will jump |
63 |
for some people asking for things like doing deeper tests runs for packages |
64 |
going to stable (at a level that was really unfeasible on a large scale) to a |
65 |
situation in that nothing (even no compile test) will be checked at all. |
66 |
|
67 |
Additionally, this will also cause new issues between people that were used to |
68 |
run "testing" in the way they are running it now and they pushing to unmask |
69 |
things faster and, others used to "stable", pushing to keep more things hard |
70 |
masked until they are fixed. It's not the first time that we see that, for |
71 |
example, a new glibc version is unmasked when maintainer feels it's ready to |
72 |
allow people to catch the bugs before it going to be stable. If we have no |
73 |
stable tree, that couldn't be done as we couldn't use "testing" for the purpose |
74 |
of "lets unmask X package it give it more visibility and let people catch the |
75 |
bugs". Then, either we keep breaking "testing" even knowing there is no stable, |
76 |
or we will start getting lots of packages in package.mask leading to new issues |
77 |
(like those packages having less visibility and fights between people thinking |
78 |
that a mid breakage is ok and others that not). |
79 |
|
80 |
Then, in my case it will be as simply as, if Gentoo becomes testing only, I |
81 |
won't be able to use it for anything productive, only for "playing" with it... |
82 |
and then, I won't see much sense on staying while I will need to use a different |
83 |
distribution de facto for the work and any computer that is not the laptop I use |
84 |
for committing and doing Gentoo dev work. |