[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Drop testing

On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:03:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Trivial analysis:
> The release managers have been putting some effort into (a)(1) over the
> past year, and there's four of them now instead of just one. How much effort
> has the project been putting into the other factors?

I think there has been a lot of effort put in (a)(2), and (b)(1),
throughout the year, it's just that we have more software (and bugs) than
people willing (or with sufficient time or capabilities) to fix them.  We
should either have more people or less software. I think there's only one
reasonable answer to that dilemma. 

The fact that a lof of effort goes into (a)(2) but does not result into a
release in the time-frame we planned also makes people abandon their effort
due to desesperation. No matter how many RC bugs we fix in the distribution
there are always new ones on the road ahead.

Also note that there are _many_ patches in the BTS for RC (and many other
bugs). But RC bugs do not get fixed in time [0] this also shows that a
number of packages are not being properly maintained and we maybe could
maybe think a way to force the maintainer to give over maintainership if he
is overloaded with other work and he cannot fix the package in time.

> > Probably there are non-technical problems with the uncoming release. But
> > there are technical problems also, yes? Why not eliminate those? If instead
> > of each mail in this thread a single RC bug that affects sarge was fixed,
> > probably there could be *zero* such bugs now.
> Why not do both? Every time you post a mail to a thread like this, fix an
> RC bug. This is the "ObBug:" rule.

ObBug: 277099



[0] For obvious reasons this usually happens with popular software or
important parts of the system. Take a look at the (non-RC bugs) open
against sysklogd, just to pick one which I've been looking today (not
necessarily the worst one).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: