| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and |
| 8 |
>>> see if there is something big left. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> we've been making trackers for the glibc upgrades: |
| 11 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16 |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> While trackers are of course the right way to handle this, it is |
| 14 |
> generally best to announce timelines more than two days in advance. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> You're certainly not the only case of this problem - I've noticed a |
| 17 |
> tendency to post a tracker for some issue, watch nothing happen for |
| 18 |
> six months, and then see an announcement that the change is being |
| 19 |
> pushed through in a few days. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Changes with a big impact should be announced on the lists well before |
| 22 |
> they are made. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Also, while users running unstable systems are naturally going to be |
| 25 |
> at risk for unforeseen issues, this isn't an unforeseen issue. When |
| 26 |
> we know a problem exists, we generally should fix it before we commit |
| 27 |
> it. If some uncommon package breaks I think we can live with that, |
| 28 |
> but gnutls doesn't fall into that category. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I'm not really interested in the blame game either. This isn't your |
| 31 |
> problem, or the gnutls maintainer's problem - this is Gentoo's |
| 32 |
> problem, and I hope we don't make it our user's problem for failure to |
| 33 |
> work together. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven |
| 36 |
that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break |
| 37 |
them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no |
| 38 |
progress is an example of halted progress. If we waited to fix all |
| 39 |
known issues prior to launch, then we would never launch. This is very |
| 40 |
common in software development. Some features are v2 features, some |
| 41 |
bugs are not worth fixing. Some bugs we will fix with a patch |
| 42 |
post-launch; I don't see how this is any different. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-A |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Rich |
| 48 |
> |
Archives