| 1 |
21.08.2013 14:36, Tom Wijsman пишет: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:54:51 +0400 |
| 3 |
> Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> 21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет: |
| 6 |
>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400 |
| 7 |
>>> Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> 21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет: |
| 10 |
>>>>> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing |
| 11 |
>>>>> are assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder |
| 12 |
>>>>> what "by some other ways" you would think of... |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> Dropping some keywords to unstable on minor arches. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> If we grow (like you said below), then doing less seems like a |
| 17 |
>>> decision that we shouldn't take; it is rather about "doing it |
| 18 |
>>> different" to use our resources in a better way. Crowd sourcing |
| 19 |
>>> users is an option here... |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> What crowd sourcing do you talking about? We have Arch Tester for |
| 22 |
>> that. Do you see vast interest in this initiative? I think not(thus, |
| 23 |
>> for major arches we have some amount of testers, some of them are |
| 24 |
>> became developers lately). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Yes, it is a large share of users that run ~, they "want to test". |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
But it seems that they do not want to become Arch testers and bring |
| 29 |
things to stable, do not you think? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
>> And if you want to move stabilization checks to unqualified users, |
| 32 |
>> then it is way to nowhere. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> No, because there would be much more users giving feedback. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Feedback is good. But if it simple "works for me" without tests on |
| 37 |
CFLAGS/LDFLAGS respect regression, cross-compile breakage regression or |
| 38 |
any other regressions, than it is pointless. I would suggest increase |
| 39 |
number of arch testers... Or, i repeat myself(in infinite time), |
| 40 |
"recruit more people" |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
>>> So, recruiting in the terms of "finding recruits" appears to be |
| 43 |
>>> hard. |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> But, at my POV, it is only one way that we can improve current |
| 46 |
>> situation. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Sorry, I do not understand (language barrier), do you mean that 1) that |
| 49 |
> should be the way to improve it or do you mean that 2) this is just one |
| 50 |
> approach and that we should look at different ones? |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Yeah, my grammar sucks, i know. So, let's summarize what i mean. To deal |
| 54 |
with our current problems with arches we have only two ways: |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
1) drop some arches to unstable -> lower the burden to arch teams; |
| 57 |
2) recruit more arch testers/arch team members; |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
| 61 |
Gentoo developer |
| 62 |
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead |
| 63 |
Gentoo Qt project lead |
| 64 |
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead |
Archives