On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:50:22 +0400 Sergey Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Easing stabilization procedure makes stable more, well, unstable. It doesn't have to be easier; it just has to be done differently, in which way we can benefit from the users whom are actively testing it. Currently we use "no bugs were filed lately" as a measure; but not all bugs get filed downstream, so that's a problematic measurement. If we bring in another measure, that is, users that state if it is stable or broken; then we have another measure that help determine whether to stabilize, because then you wouldn't have cases where 1) a package ends up being stabilized although it doesn't work for 33% of the users because the GUI wasn't tested thoroughly and also not have cases where 2) a package works for almost anyone but not for the arch tester for some blocker that nobody else experiences at all. It clarifies that the arch tester's system is broken, which we then fix. > Bringing some workarounds like this brokes consistency of keywording. It does not, when replacing the current way things are done we do not aim for it to be easier but rather for it to be different in that more users can contribute to the effort; the effort doesn't get easier, and should not result in a less consistent way of keywording. This should not be "let's ask some users" but rather "let's set up a carefully designed framework to properly deal with this". > As i said earlier, we should recruit more people -> then problem will > go away. There is no guarantee of that; years from now, we might have this discussion again. Yeah, maybe we might not; let's see what comes... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
