On 12/02/2013 09:08 AM, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a. Dimstar wrote:
Quoting Robert Kaiser <KaiRo(a)kairo.at>at>:
Richard Brown schrieb:
A) 'this has been tested (ideally by both
human and automated means) and
is confirmed by those tests to be functioning'
B) 'this has been tested (ideally by both human and automated means),
confirmed to be working, and is felt to be 'stable' by the maintainers
of that project'
I disagree on B because Factory ought to be the development distro,
not a "fully stable" distro. There can be bugs, that's OK, as long as
it's in a state where it's well enough usable for day-to-day operation
and any significant bugs are worked on and fixed fast.
So, I'd replace "stable" with "well-usable in daily operation"
definition of B and then I feel it matches what Factory should be.
What I would add in though is that is should not apply to "this" in
terms of the particular package only, but "the result of this change",
which should include what it does to all dependencies that are in
Factory (in most cases, this will not make a huge difference, but in
cases like gcc it can be huge).
Valid definition... and something that can be agreed.
But it will still mean, I will not submit GNOME 3.11.2 to Factory; there
are surely bugs (that's why upstream does not release it stable branch)
and I don't know how fast any of the given bugs can be fixed... and I'm
not willing to chase down 250 git commits until the next snapshot
release comes (probably in 4 - 6 weeks).
So, as it stands, I will keep on waiting for 3.12.0 to become available,
at which point I probably can't submit it due to none of the integration
work being done / prepared (the upgrade will be too large for all other
packages to absorb it... and the GNOME Team will not have time to run
after everything, as we'd want 3.12.1 in there soon too).
so far, Factory was a 'integration' project, with the aim to be usable..
new it shall be a usable project, with the aim to integrate new stuff. A
small, but subtle difference. And the ultimate target to have it
stabilized was the release.
I think GNOME is a good example but the same problem applies to many
other devel projects.
I also think that neither A or B as proposed by Richard are solutions to
the problem described by Dominique.
The changes in wording from "stable" to "usable" would definitely be
necessary, but this is also a very slippery slope. A bug that breaks
functionality in a given way may not effect one person and thus the
system is "usable" while it will leave another person completely stuck,
thus the system is "not usable". Therefore, even the "usable"
appears to open up a can of worms.
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX
Public Cloud Architect
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org