On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Tomáš Čech <sleep_walker@opensuse.org> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:55:21PM -0800, PatrickD Garvey wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Tomáš Čech <sleep_walker@opensuse.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 02:41:08PM -0800, PatrickD Garvey wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Tomáš Čech <sleep_walker@opensuse.org> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 05:16:12PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
The bureaucracy is why I stopped contributing packages to Factory.
Simple as that.
Getting a package building and functioning is enough work. I just don't have the energy/time to pass the Factory 'bar' afterwards.
The interesting point here is that both parties are satisfied.
I don't read Klaus' statement as one of satisfaction. I infer he still wishes he could have found someone who was willing to work with him to get the package into Factory.
OK, poor wording on my side. I should say - situation is balanced.
We've got good and maintainable distribution with good package quality.
The sentence above indicates to me that you don't wish the distribution to grow the number of components offered for an installer's choice at installation of openSUSE because that would increase the difficulty in maintaining the package quality. I agree, it would increase the effort required to maintain the quality.
My impression is that you shift the meaning of what I write. English is not my mother tongue but I think I wrote that unambiguously.
The problem in unambiguous communication in English is that English has so many ways to say the same thing and so many meanings are carried by the same few, carefully chosen words. That is why I fed back my understanding of what you said. You construct well-written English sentences. I just think we are discussing something important and I don't want this to turn into a flame war just from a small misinterpretation on my part.
No, I wish to grow number of packages but not at cost of lowering "the quality bar". If it can't meet quality requirements, I'd rather reject the package.
I stand with you here. One of the things that attracted me to openSUSE was openQA, which I thought was the first attempt I had seen in a Linux distro to apply computer tools to the quality of the distro. I most definitely want what is offered to avoid regressions, which I have come to understand is a strength of openQA. So, Yes, whatever is available as an openSUSE repository or ISO should meet quality requirements.
People are frustrated about the bureaucracy of the process because they see package submission as their goal. But from the distribution POV it is just beginning and all that rules and quality requirements are set to ease package maintenance - which is something that is important for every other user.
Yes, that would be one cause of the frustration, a mismatch between the submitter's expectations and the maintainer's objectives.
It would be nice if people contact either review team, IRC channel or mailing list asking for help before they got frustrated and annoyed.
This is where I wonder if we couldn't find an improvement. Is this not a two-sided problem? If the review process has the same challenge of using the English language, is it not possible for a submitter to perceive a certain arbitrariness to the standards being used by the reviewers? I have worked between two sides of a similar situation. I have had to train Engineers to watch the way they use the software meant to facilitate the design process so that they can describe what led up to a problem that we needed to report to the software shop that built the software. They hated the amount of time and other effort that was required to make the tool produce what they wanted in the manner they wanted to use the tool. I also had to educate the software shop's first-level report taker to not ask for that which can not be provided, namely a keystroke by keystroke recreation of the failure. The first-level, of course, was operating from the perception that the people he was fronting wanted that sort of report. Together we worked on the process so what could be provided would be accepted as part of the information from multiple sources that would lead to an improvement in the software. My perception in the case of submissions to a distro is that the submitter and reviewer need to synchronize their expectations or maybe the process can find a way to accept the work done as a intermediate contribution that still needs some work. Maybe there could be a repository for potential Mentors to review for work with a potential Mentee? It seems to me having a frustrated submitter is a definite loss to the project and it doesn't need to be either adequate quality or no submission. My thanks for having the patience to help me refine my understanding of your viewpoint. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org