Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:30:10
Message-Id: 20140116192955.GA11957@laptop.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Rich Freeman
1 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
2 > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
3 > > I certainly don't think the work needs to go away if the work is
4 > > considered to be important. It's fine to have open bugs for years
5 > > in the absence of a good solution.
6 >
7 > I get what you're saying, though there is still a cost to leaving the
8 > bug open to years. In this case it means an old package stays in the
9 > tree marked as stable. That either costs maintainers the effort to
10 > keep it work, or they don't bother to keep in working in which case
11 > users get saddled with issues.
13 Correct.
15 > I am completely in support of making use of the priority field - if
16 > something is causing issues by all means call attention to it. I bet
17 > it would /help/ with the problem, but it won't make it go away.
19 It might help, but, no, it will not make the problem go away.
20 The issue is that the arch team and maintainer may have different
21 ideas of what is high priority. If a maintainer opens a high priority
22 stable request or bumps a stable request to high priority, there is no
23 guarantee that the arch team will feel it should be prioritized the same
24 way, and when that happens, users are stuck with issues from the old
25 versions of the software.
27 William


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature