| 1 |
On 04/17/2015 07:15 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Berntsen |
| 3 |
> <bernalex@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> On 17/04/15 16:33, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> The problem is double effort: previously one developer effort was |
| 7 |
>>> needed, now effort is doubled at least |
| 8 |
>> You have correctly identified the problem; in order to do things |
| 9 |
>> properly one must do things properly, which is more difficult than not |
| 10 |
>> doing things properly. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> "Properly" is just a matter of requirements. Gentoo has 18k packages |
| 14 |
> right now. In my general experience, they install fine maybe 95% of |
| 15 |
> the time. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Can you back up your "general experience" with a tinderbox log? In |
| 19 |
addition, you are decreasing "QA" to "compiles". That's not the definition. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Right now we |
| 22 |
> end up dropping packages because we can't find one person to maintain |
| 23 |
> them. With a review workflow we'll drop packages if we can't find two |
| 24 |
> people to maintain them. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Nah, that's really not true. With a review workflow there is less need |
| 27 |
for actual maintainers! That's the whole point. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I am really confused. I guess some people have never really been in a |
| 31 |
different workflow than gentoo to know that it's really not |
| 32 |
state-of-the-art. And it really isn't. Not even for distros. |
Archives