Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Andrea Barisani <lcars@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:57:24
Message-Id: 20051122154039.GW5305@sole.infis.univ.trieste.it
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation by Chris Gianelloni
1 On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:14:04AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
2 > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:37 +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
3 > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 02:47:45PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
4 > > > We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
5 > > > remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
6 > > > still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do.
7 > > >
8 > > > In my years of monitoring www@g.o, we've received the most
9 > > > complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a
10 > > > way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation,
11 > > > perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, "for advanced users only" or "use at
12 > > > your own risk"?
13 > > >
14 > > > --kurt
15 > > >
16 > >
17 > > I perfectly agree with this request, we should provide the choice and clear
18 > > point that out (along with all the correlated risks) instead of simply
19 > > "hiding" the option. And I sincerely hope there's no intention to remove
20 > > stage1/stage2 tarballs in the future because that would be a really a bad thing
21 > > imho.
22 >
23 > The problem with listing risks and such is the users aren't listening.
24 >
25 > They are ignoring our warnings and breaking their own systems, then
26 > filing bugs. The problem is that these are *not* bugs, but issues with
27 > incompatibility. It is impossible to install something that requires a
28 > configured kernel before you have a configured kernel.
29 >
30
31 I still think that pointing things with a *huge* warning shouldn't be
32 a problem...otherwise we would always end up "hiding" things prone to user
33 error because we think that users are listening. At least let's draft a nice
34 and visible document explaining the change and why people should not use this
35 anymore since judging from the complaints lots of people just don't get it.
36
37 > Now, on the topic of the tarballs.
38 >
39 > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
40 > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
41 >
42
43 Oh well nothing. I don't doubt that userwise they are not needed...but there
44 might be other needs developerwise where the two stages are useful.
45
46 So fair enough, remove it from the docs...but at least let's explain why we
47 are doing this since complaints are there (legit or not).
48
49 --
50 Andrea Barisani <lcars@g.o> .*.
51 Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer V
52 ( )
53 PGP-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc ( )
54 0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E ^^_^^
55 "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
56 --
57 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@×××××.com>