| 1 |
On 2013-02-12 6:30 PM, (Nuno Silva) <<nunojsilva@×××××××.pt (Nuno |
| 2 |
Silva)> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I have no doubts that devs have lots of work to do, but it's a rather |
| 4 |
> serious situation if the difference between unstable and stable land is |
| 5 |
> *not* used as an advantage when it comes to deal with situations like |
| 6 |
> this and udev's kernel requirements and network rules. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I guess a good rule of thumb would be: if a stabilization/profile change |
| 9 |
> or introduced error message will require users to change their settings |
| 10 |
> by hand, change their kernel config to match new requirements in order |
| 11 |
> to have an usable system or to treat some packages/flags in a different |
| 12 |
> way, this should not go forward until a news item has been prepared to |
| 13 |
> notify users about it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Add "with an appropriate bake-in time *after* the news item is released |
| 16 |
to provide time for stable users to digest and understand the |
| 17 |
implications, and for unstable users to thrash out any issues before |
| 18 |
pushing it s-to stable." before the period at the end of that last |
| 19 |
sentence and I agree wholeheartedly. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Question: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Is there a well defined 'bake-in' time for things like this? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If not, there should be. |
Archives