On Mar 26, 2011, at 09:10 AM, Robert Collins wrote: >We have in the past fallen into a trap of aiming for 100% in each step >*before* we move onto the next one. That means we're well past the >point of getting a net benefit (think 80-20 rule) by the time we start >moving on. These import problems have a viciously long tail : isn't it >better to be making things a lot better *most* of the time?
I agree that you're not going to get 100% importer success, but attacking say the top 5 common importer failures could knock off maybe 50% of the current failures. That'd be a huge improvement without even stepping onto that long tail. That, and solving bug 609187 would really help. With that bug fixed, we could at least tell people "just do bzr branch and if that fails, fallback to apt-get source" instead of all the LBYL checking we currently have to recommend (see step 0 in the wiki docs). >I acknowledge the psychological impact of 'if it doesn't work always >its hard to remember' - but we're already well past the common working >set of any one developer, and Martin isn't suggesting that imports be >abandoned, just that closing the loop is *as* important as improving >the import story. I agree that I'd love to see the loop closed! Do you think the team can make the above top priority, and still have resources for BFBIP? -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
