Mark Loeser schrieb:
> Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> said:
>> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
>>> 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?!
>> we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone. we're talking
>> about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only
>> available in unstable. expecting everything in testing to be documented up
>> front is unreasonable. no one is saying the stuff shouldnt be documented,
>> just that complete user friendly coverage is not a requirement for unstable.
>>
>> your comments here dont really apply to bleeding edge -- they certainly
>> apply
>> to stable though.
>
> I'd say this isn't correct. Unstable isn't a pure testing playground.
> its meant for packages that should be considered for stable. As such,
> we should make sure that we get the documentation needed ready, so we
> can make sure that it is correct for people that are testing the upgrade
> path for us. It then gives us a chance to correct our documentation
> before it goes stable.
>
> All this comes down to is laziness in documenting changes, and forcing
> stuff upon our users. Neither of those things is good, and if everyone
> thinks that's the status quo...that really should change.
>
> I disagree with you. Unstable/TESTING tree is for new packages and package versions, which where until then not widely tested. With adding them, you can get more feedback and can filter out versions, which might be good enough to go into stable. THEN you should write the needed details for an upgrade to this version. And people using TESTING are free to tell about their upgrade and helping with improving the information. But there are and will always be versions, which will never meet the stable tree and are only there for users, who want to test the latest version. And our manpower is limited. It would be some nice ideal world, if everything even in TESTING tree would be completly documented. But if you require something like that, please show us the people, who have enough time and knowledge to be able to do this part. I have only a limited amount of time. And if i am required to write more docs, it would mean that i can maintain less packages/help less projects/users/potential new devs preparing their quizzes. I bet its the same for most of our team. In the end, i require TESTING users to be able to recover and to be able to report bugs via bugzilla, even if the packages are not fully documented as written previously. And in this special case, openrc had a sane default for the useflag, a useflag description and a warning, if the useflag is disabled. And until now, we only had exactly 1 user, who complained about the default version, but without giving us enough details neither here nor via bugzilla. So in this part, i fully support Matthias (zzam) and Mike (vapier): A sane version with good default and basic information was added (thanks Matthias for that!) and it seems to work without problems this way for all users except those, who are unable or unwilling to fill a bug with needed details. And we are not able to help those users. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
