Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-04-25 09:27:34, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > - I don't think that the bounty model gives the correct incentive for
> > the security work, and you would have a hard time covering the hard
> > packages...
>
> I think this is a critical part of it. Bounties are fine and fun if you
> want to scratch an itch and someone happens to want to pay for it. But
> then you'd probably do it anyways if there was no bounty either. It's a
> small incentive, often not sufficient to get hard things done, and most
> of the time not enough to pay the rent.
My point was not about this. First, bounty does not imply an amount that
does not match the work required... but it usually implies a fixed amount
defined up-front which is close to impossible to correctly guess. And it
usually implies that you get to pick what you work on and that you can
ignore the bounties that do not interest you. People will pick easy
updates quickly and the hard ones will languish indefinitely. Also given a
fixed amount you will want to do as many as possible as quickly as
possible and you are more likely to badly test an update.
Here we need to be able to say, ok we're going to pay you for X hours this
month, but you will have to tackle also the hard updates that have been
hanging around and those that will come... (and also LTS frontdesk duties)
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/
Reply to: