| 1 |
"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <chainsaw@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
1215127573.4067.7.camel@localhost, excerpted below, on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 |
| 3 |
00:26:13 +0100: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early |
| 6 |
>> version bump requests? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
AFAIK, it has been at least informal policy to discourage bump requests |
| 9 |
for the first week or two. After that, it's fair game, but of course |
| 10 |
check for dups b4 filing. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Just an idea: |
| 13 |
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests |
| 14 |
> are welcome? It's more of an individual developer preference, but that |
| 15 |
> seems the right place for it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
While I like the /idea/ of a metadata tag, all in all, I think a blanket |
| 18 |
policy remains best (read least confusing). Make it 72 hours or a week |
| 19 |
or whatever. Devs who know and prefer not to be bothered after that can |
| 20 |
file their own bug, thus letting people know /they/ know, and giving |
| 21 |
people a place to CC for updates. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
BTW, is there a supported and easily user usable metadata viewer. |
| 24 |
Something at the level of gentoolkit? I've not seen or read of such a |
| 25 |
thing, which indicates it's likely pretty obscure if so. What good would |
| 26 |
a metadata tag do if it's not info exposed to the users? Practically, |
| 27 |
that's just more confusing. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives