1 |
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 04:04 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:04:19 -0600 |
3 |
> Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > Your "suggestion" was expanding the "arm" keyword to "armv4-linux", |
6 |
> > "armv5-linux", "armv6-linux", "armv6-hardfloat-linux", |
7 |
> > "armv7-softfp-linux", "armv7-hardfloat-linux", |
8 |
> > "armv7-hardfloat-uclibc-linux" - that is nowhere near a good solution. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> We've ran over the reasons and they have appeared as fit for this idea. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> It can be prejudged as "nowhere near a good solution"; but for it to |
13 |
> actually be that, it would need solid reasoning that people agree on. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Reasoning is also needed to be able to figure out which conditions are |
16 |
> fit for another solution; that way, the other solutions could be shaped |
17 |
> with the help of that feedback to make the other solutions better. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> > The /dev/null comment was about wanting others to do the work and not |
20 |
> > contributing anything more than (imo) a stupid idea |
21 |
> |
22 |
> The idea moves work from one place to another, which yields the same |
23 |
> amount of work; your work statement seems like another topic, which you |
24 |
> are making basic assumptions on. Solutions to the stated actual problem |
25 |
> are neglected, as more time for research and consideration is needed. |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
> To get on the topic of your work statement; consider that one can find |
29 |
> 7 people whom each have one arm configuration much faster than one can |
30 |
> find 1 person that has all of them. |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
The idea moves the work around, it doesn't lessen the workload at all. |
34 |
You can easily find 7 people who have an armv7, and even v6, since the |
35 |
rpi is quite popular. Getting them into the arch team and willing to |
36 |
run stable and actually test programs is a whole other story, which lead |
37 |
to you saying: |
38 |
|
39 |
"People that have certain architectures can just add themselves, no |
40 |
extra work again." |
41 |
|
42 |
And that's a show stopper, just randomly adding yourself to an arch team |
43 |
and claiming you've tested it is a nonstarter. Considering if there IS |
44 |
an issue, we then have to track you down and figure out why/what is |
45 |
different in the configuration that it's failing for others. You being |
46 |
on the QA team even offering that up as an option makes it questionable |
47 |
as to why you're on the QA team. That should never even be thought of |
48 |
as an option. |
49 |
|
50 |
What you've thrown out as a possible solution is akin to taking a pile |
51 |
of peas on the plate and moving them around the plate so that the pile |
52 |
doesn't look so big. |
53 |
|
54 |
It doesn't change the amount of work, but you do need to look in more |
55 |
places for the work. Finding people with the hardware is the main |
56 |
issue, and I think I mentioned before, some people are simply unwilling |
57 |
to invest in "slow" hardware, so we have to rely on the people who DO |
58 |
have it. And if that means things take longer to stable, well, why is |
59 |
that an issue? Stable is supposed to be that - stable. |
60 |
|
61 |
> > if you aren't willing to put in the work, don't expect others to. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> If you are unwilling to work towards solutions, don't expect others to. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> > And yes, I see what you mean now re: my reply seeming off - it would |
66 |
> > seem when I hit group reply, for some reason, Evolution is putting |
67 |
> > Peter Stuge into the CC, and not Tom Wijsman (despite hitting group |
68 |
> > reply from your email. Maybe there should have been more testing of |
69 |
> > Gnome 3.8 before it was stabled on x86... |
70 |
> |
71 |
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html |
72 |
> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html |
73 |
> |
74 |
|
75 |
I don't care of "reply to" is considered harmful, I care that something |
76 |
that worked with the previous stable is suddenly not working with the |
77 |
new stable. It obviously shows that it wasn't tested properly, and yet |
78 |
was marked stable. So, as QA, shouldn't you be doing something about |
79 |
that, rather than pointing to some URLs on the web, telling me I'm in |
80 |
the wrong for using the option that is supposed to handle that properly |
81 |
in my stable software? |