On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 09:44, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> >>> We want to ship the best product possible. This mailing list is defined to
> >>> be our decision-making focus. It seems incorrect to disregard a reported
> >>> problem simply because (for whatever reason) an issue is not in the tracker.
> >> I don't claim that we should disregard the problem. I *do* claim that
> >> we should more widely publicize blocking issues so that everybody can
> >> be aware of them.
> Done. It was posted to this list.
Sure, but that's not where people are looking for blocking issues. As
agreed upon by the community, the place to look for those issues is
the issue tracker. Someone looking to answer the question "what's
blocking 1.7.0?" shouldn't be expected to troll through the last 2
months of mailing list archives and come up their own list.
> >> The greater point was that this seems to be something that various
> >> people have kicking around in their heads. We agreed in Berlin (and
> >> then discussed on this list) to use the issue tracker to record
> >> blocking issues. I really don't want to be in the position of rolling
> >> a possible release candidate, only to find out we're got all these
> >> hidden issues that aren't being tracked in the agreed-upon public
> >> manner.
> Certainly, but you're not the only one to decide what will be a
> release candidate. As we've seen in this thread, hidden issues will be
Certainly agree. One of the main purposes of throwing out dates and
deadlines is to try and smoke out all of these phantom issues from the
woodwork. I just kinda wish it didn't take a "hey, we're getting
close to an RC" mail before folks brought that stuff up.
> Is it as efficient as it could be? No. But it *works*.
> > I am with Hyrum on this one. If there are blockers people need to
> > create issues for them or at least formally raise them on dev@ so that
> > someone else can create an issue. We should not be waiting for Hyrum
> > to announce the plans to make a release to suddenly reveal there are
> > blockers.
> It happens. So we deal with it and move on. This issue *has been*
> formally raised here on dev@, in this very thread. Some people just
> don't like to take time away from their coding to file an issue. I
> don't like to do it, and I suspect the same for Ivan. That is just the
> way people work.
> An issue has been filed now, for all the issue-oriented people. Done.
> Process works.
Sure, but I think the greater point of this discussion is not to
address this particular instance, but rather to help increase
awareness for people the next time. I don't want to have this
discussion tomorrow or next week or next month.
> My issue was with Hyrum's statement:
> "Not that I can see. As per our project-wide consensus regarding
> branching and releasing and release candidates and such, nothing in
> the issue tracker means that there isn't a blocking issue."
> To me, that reads as a casual disregard to Bert requesting that we do
> NOT roll a release candidate until the issue is fixed.
I'm sorry, that's not what I meant (though reading my statement, I can
see how it could be taken that way). I certainly want as many issues
addressed before the RCs as possible: I just would like those issues
identified and documented in the heretofore agreed-upon manner (if
they can't be fixed expeditiously, of course).
fwiw, I think we're not really that far apart ideologically. We both
want to ship great software. For whatever reason, I'm the guy that
volunteered with helping to shepherd the release. Having as much
information as possible makes that role much less frustrating.
Unfortunately my mind-reading-fu is still lacking, so I like to use
the issue tracker.
PS - I've probably spent way to much time on this as it is, and as the
marginal utility of my mails in this thread is rapidly decreasing,
I'll stop now. :)
Received on 2011-07-05 21:02:35 CEST