Re: 2.20 schedule

hi kjartan,

(will answer other issues in another email later)

Am Donnerstag, den 08.03.2007, 13:35 +0100 schrieb Kjartan Maraas:
> But I don't agree that we should adjust our schedule for $distro because
> they would like to ship GNOME $version. We can't control their progress
> and whether they stick to the schedule anyway, so I don't think it's in
> our best interest to tighten our own schedule just to meet theirs.

i did not want to imply that a distro would be a kind of "time
constraint" (it is not), but wanted to express my assumption that some
of our customers (means here: "distros", because gnome is not an
end-user product) got used to our habit to release not later than midth
of september. see, i also try to care about our customers, not only
about our end-users. ;-)

to be honest, i only looked up the timetables for ubuntu, fedora and
suse - good to have some mandriva feedback here from frederic, thanks.

> Do you really think that lack of quality in 2.x.1, 2.x.2 etc is the
> reason why distros don't ship them as full updates? Do we have any
> numbers that show that we introduce more new bugs than we fix in the
> stable series? I'd be surprised if that is the case.

i'd love to get more numbers, but imo gnome entirely lacks some
controlling (and missing statistical data makes heuristics, e.g. on the
amount of future bug reports, impossible. but that's another issue).

> > patches. this would also reduce the bugsquad workload and provide a
> > clearer bugreport feedback to identify the important issues.
> Please elaborate :-)

currently, bugzilla gets lots of bug reports, especially from ubuntu
(note: this is not negative).
currently ubuntu and opensuse (and probably a few more distros) have a
backport policy.
we don't have a system on how to identify important fixes, so those
distros only provide an updated package containing a bugfix, if somebody
has poked them (also see [1]).

this means that even if 6 bugs of a product are closed as "fixed in
2.16.2", i cannot find out if the patches have really fixed the issues,
because such "small" patches do not get backported in $distro that ships
i often have to wait for a new release of $distro to see if the bug
reports on a particular issue get less (or zero), which would imply that
the fix actually worked.

and it can be hard to convince these distros to backport patches when
it's not totally clear if a particular patch really fixes a major issue
(e.g. - would you
backport the fix at 396161#c1, if it "perhaps" fixes the issue? yes, i
had discussions on this particular one).

that's some of the current problems that i see in bugzilla.


 mailto:ak-47 gmx net | failed!  |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

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