| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 5 |
| It's about quality not quantity maybe? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It's about both, and getting the balance right is effectively what this |
| 8 |
boils down to (as do many discussions on -dev). There's those devs who |
| 9 |
want high levels of QA and those devs that want the |
| 10 |
latest/obscure/testing/rare packages. Generally the two sides play |
| 11 |
oppose each other. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Personally I think having both super-devs (who do lots of commits, care |
| 14 |
deeply about QA and know their stuff intimately) and |
| 15 |
official-contributor type devs (those who maintain a few specialist |
| 16 |
packages when they can) is a good idea. Giving the undertakers more |
| 17 |
work by giving them more reports of potentially lax devs and requiring |
| 18 |
them to investigate seems a little wasteful to me. I'd far rather the |
| 19 |
undertakers spent the extra time on positive contributions to the actual |
| 20 |
distribution (rather than it's administration). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So the still unanswered question appears to be, would we like Gentoo to |
| 23 |
have fewer packages and less choice but greater QA, stability and a feel |
| 24 |
of professionalism, or would we like to have more packages and choice |
| 25 |
but a worse QA record, make some mistakes, and have a more |
| 26 |
community-based feel? If you're going to try to answer this question |
| 27 |
please be delicate with your repsonses, in the past I can recall |
| 28 |
developers leaving over exactly this divide... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Mike 5:) |
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkf0y6wACgkQu7rWomwgFXoCRACdHKACZY9yjfetGKJ5JtRP6y6U |
| 35 |
YBkAniFzWanDJvUkXUe8XglBBBP9sXsk |
| 36 |
=mp9f |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives