Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 05:36:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:00:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > First of all I think you should concede that the exercise you're asking
> > > us to do cannot be done as easily as you did yours.
> > I don't concede that. I've read your mail, and to sum up you say:
> (Note that the "concede" was on a side aspect, not on the fact that I
> was able---which clearly I was not---to convince you of my arguments.)
> > So the next question is "why" your mail doesn't answer that. I still
> > think that rolling is a bad idea, until you've proven me that it's the
> > sole way to address a real life issue/need/itch.
> Yes, you're right and I've no answer for that, because the way I've
> interacted with people was in some aggregate form, which didn't permit
> me to investigate more than that. So, sorry, I give up on answering
> this. But that doesn't stop me from seeing as perfectly reasonable the
> use cases already mentioned several times in this thread
> (e.g. <20110501200120.GA18556@gnu.kitenet.net> for a short version).
> It's very clear to me that they are not enough to convince you and
> others, but they are convincing for me.
Well I don't want to be convinced or not convinced, you misunderstood
why I'm asking that. I'm asking because I want to evaluate if rolling is
the sole answer we can bring to these people.
They say they want testing to be usable, but maybe what they want is
something that we can achieve without touching testing at all. So I'd
like to understand. There is absolutely no will on my end to be
convinced or not convinced, this was a genuine question for pure
·O· Pierre Habouzit