15.01.2014 03:49, Tom Wijsman пишет: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600 > William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Thoughts? > > In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices: > > 1. "We do nothing"; which means that as a side effect either less > often a version would be picked for stabilization or stabilizations > will just take longer due to a longer queue. The question here is > whether the queue is actually growing; to get a quick idea, we could > compare the amount of bugs we have now compared to those of last time. > > Advantage: We keep the same policy and quality of stabilization. > > Disadvantage: Stable runs further behind. Waiting time. Frustration. > > Resources: We need to find more people for the arch teams. > > 2. "We crowd source it"; which means we tackle the 'low manpower' > problem itself, we invite at a larger scale feedback for packages in > one or another way. This ranges from a simple reminder when merging a > non-stable package to report back whether it is working, to a more > large scale new website effort where this can be done much more > organized; but that's a whole discussion on its own. > > Advantage: Power to the community. Need for arch teams decreases. > > Disadvantage: Stabilization quality could drop. Enough feedback? > > Resources: We need to patch up and/or write enough to pull > attention from the user that there aid is needed. > > 3. "We make stable mean less"; which means that we accept the 'low > manpower' problem, this would as a consequence thus mean that because > we cannot put in enough effort to deem everything stable anymore. The > word 'stable' would thus mean less, instead of 'thoroughly tested by > a separate person' it becomes 'tested by the same maintainer'. > > Advantage: Gentoo becomes slightly more bleeding edge. > > Disadvantage: Problematic for important packages were stabilization > is really needed; 'stability' of some user application > has a much smaller meaning than on a library shared > between multiple applications of the user. > > Resources: Less resources used, though it might yield more bugs. > > Of course this is not meant to limit other choices, there might be > others and I hope people bring them forward; as a closing word it feels > hard to decide here, especially since it can have quite an effect on > the distribution. As put above neither option seems convincing, neither > option seems like it is without risk; does anyone have a different view? > > Unless we only do a small version of those options, like changing a > minor detail instead of pushing it through at once; which could be a > more safe step forward. Which smaller options do we have here? > > If at all, maybe experiment something on one arch to start with? >
As i said earlier for similar proposals - the one option that i see here to make all things going better - to recruit more people in arch teams/arch testers. Other options lead us to nowhere, when stable will be eliminated or transformed into fake. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
