Joshua Saddler schrieb: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:54:31 +0200 > Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is >> about TESTING new versions and packages. You should expect problems and you >> should be able to recover from them and you should be able to use bugzilla. >> Else i suggest you move to a stable arch instead. >> >> Your arguments could make sense, if it would be about the stable tree, but >> forcing the testing tree to be a second stable tree, just with newer package >> versions isnt our goal nor does it help anyone. > > I'm going to pick on your email for this: you're not alone in your feelings, > but yours is the most convenient email to reply to. :) > > "You should expect problems and you should be able to recover from them." > > You're right! You're so right that I'm going to go and completely expunge the > OpenRC Migration guide from CVS, because users don't need documentation on > how to make the change! They should already know that there "will be > problems," so we don't need to tell them which *specific* problems those will > be. Right? Right. > > And since they should already "be able to recover from them," there's no need > to list step-by-step instructions on making the change or dealing with > complications, since they're supposed to already know that. I don't know how, > but surely not by reading some silly guide! Guides are for n00bs! ~arch is > for elite hax0rs who already know everything about OpenRC's internals. And if > they don't know what they're doing, then they shouldn't be running ~arch > packages, so let's presume to tell them what we think *their* needs are. > We're right. > > And we certainly don't want them testing something if there's a GUIDE for it, > I mean, sheesh! That's like asking them to help out. No, no, we want our > users to come crawling to US, through the festering, fetid sekrit corridors > of our labyrinthine bugzilla, to join us in our even more sekrit rituals > around the "Status whiteboard." > > * * * > > All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to > magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* . . > . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 team > would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing up > xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?!
Did i tell you, that you or anyone else it not allowed to write documentation? Did i say anything about "documentation is not needed at all"? I just said that people, who want to TEST the latest versions should be prepared to get until then unknown problems. If you know those problems before they are known, feel free to write docs and tell people (+upstream and maintainers) about them. In addition, for moving something to stable, some news item, upgrade guide or other sort of docs might be needed. I never wrote something against this part. But if you really want to require information about unknown bugs before they happen and want to work with TESTING tree as it would be STABLE tree, then you really mixed something up. Btw: When did the X11 team write the upgrade guides for xorg-server-1.5/1.6? Some time relative to introduction of those versions into TESTING tree are enough. In an ideal world with every dev knowing everything and having unfinite time, we could maybe require TESTING tree to be fully documented. Until then, i prefer having a package in TESTING instead of not being able to use it at all since noone wants to add it. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
