On 15/04/2014, at 9:58 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote: >> Is there _actual pressure_ from a defined source (who I can speak to), or >> is it something such as "we're really overdue already", etc? > > That's setting the bar a bit high, don't you think?
Not seeing why really. > Those of us at > Summit have all had the dubious pleasure of telling users that the > feature they asked about isn't available in a release yet. Should we > follow up that bad news by asking them to go out of their way to contact > some random guy who's not there, or sign a statement spelling out > exactly what effect lack of that feature had on their decision not to > deploy GlusterFS? Should you provide similar proof regarding your > claims about lack of documentation? Of course not. That doesn't make sense to me. > We all get that poor documentation hurts the project. Some of us have > even tried to do something about that. Most of us also realize that > releases dragging on too long *also* hurt the project in a variety of > ways. Having to maintain an active current-release branch in addition > to master is a drag on development. Users are ill served by being > unable to get fixes for actual bugs in easily consumable form. We're > dealing with a tradeoff here, not something where one side gets to put > on a white hat and jam the black hat on somebody else. Ok. Hadn't really thought of 3.5 as a "fix" for 3.4 bugs. Kind of thought 3.4.x series was for that. So what you're saying is that 3.5 isn't just about releasing new features, it's also a more stable/better platform for people to run on? > I'm deliberately not taking a position on whether or not we should > release with the documentation in its current state. All I'm saying > is that making inequitable demands of one another, or trying to > portray one another as failing to appreciate users' needs, hurts > the project even more than either poor documentation or late > releases. That's an issue on which I *am* willing to take a stand. If people have things they _need_ that are only in 3.5 then I can definitely understand they're going to be unhappy with a delay. But won't they also be unhappy with a 3.5 release where the features they want don't have docs? Put it this way... my thinking is that at the moment the "lack of docs in Gluster 3.5" is a *developer* problem, not a user one. If we release 3.5 without (even basic) docs for *all* of the new features, we've just promoted it to a user problem *as well as* a developer problem. ? + Justin -- Open Source and Standards @ Red Hat twitter.com/realjustinclift _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
