Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:24:21
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree by Kristian Fiskerstrand
1 On 08/14/2016 05:35 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
2 >
3 > Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is
4 > * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the
5 > fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for
6 > this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers.
7 > Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED
8 > NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize
9 > developers to not close bugs before it is fixed?
10 >
12 (Please add me to the wg-stable alias)
14 Bugzilla helps me get things done. It lets me split up the things I have
15 to do into manageable sub-things and then organize them into a
16 dependency graph and sort them in terms of the amount of time it will
17 take and the return on investment. Once that's done -- and when I have
18 some free time -- I can always pick something from the list assigned to
19 me that fits the hole in my free time snugly.
21 If we have to wait for a fix to hit stable before I can close a bug, who
22 should I assign it to? I don't want 200 bugs, that I can do literally
23 nothing about, assigned to me for years while I wait for them to get
24 stabilized. It's also going to kill my motivation knowing that, no
25 matter how hard I work, my bug count is never going to go down.
27 Right now, at least I can close a bug after I fix it. The STABLEREQ is a
28 separate bug, clearly identified, and created at my leisure or a user's
29 request (I would still prefer they be assigned to someone else since I
30 can do absolutely nothing to help). If I filter the STABLEREQs out of my
31 list, I retain the satisfaction of closing a bug when I fix it.