1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Support policy
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Support%20policy&In-Reply-To=%3CAANLkTi%3DNvoNwDLN4M1aMgUO9d9AstBNauV5boBZa6j43%40mail.gmail.com%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="001566.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="001570.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Support policy</H1>
<B>Daniel Kreuter</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Support%20policy&In-Reply-To=%3CAANLkTi%3DNvoNwDLN4M1aMgUO9d9AstBNauV5boBZa6j43%40mail.gmail.com%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Support policy">daniel.kreuter85 at googlemail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Wed Dec 1 09:42:18 CET 2010</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001566.html">[Mageia-dev] Support policy
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001570.html">[Mageia-dev] Support policy
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1568">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1568">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1568">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1568">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>2010/12/1 Maarten Vanraes <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">maarten.vanraes at gmail.com</A>>
><i> Op dinsdag 30 november 2010 13:31:08 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
</I>><i> > Hi,
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > I would like to discuss the support policy for Mageia.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > It would be interesting to know (or decide) where Mageia is heading,
</I>><i> given
</I>><i> > our limited resources : 1) focus on stability and security : few very
</I>><i> well
</I>><i> > equally supported packages. Apparently, this is where we're going for
</I>><i> now.
</I>><i> > May be wise as a start, but I hope this is not our final destination,
</I>><i> > because it means either very limited choice, or progressive diminution of
</I>><i> > quality of support if the number of packages increases faster than the
</I>><i> > dedicated resources. 2) focus on choice : many packages, but no support
</I>><i> > policy. This would be really bad, I think we're not heading there, from
</I>><i> > what I read. However, this is a danger if we start from option 1) and
</I>><i> then
</I>><i> > open wide the gates for importing packages, without setting a support
</I>><i> > policy. 3) focus on both (this is my option). There would be 2 levels of
</I>><i> > support : - top guaranteed support : those are the (few at start)
</I>><i> packages
</I>><i> > your can rely on almost blindly, they'll be updated in a timely manner,
</I>><i> > and updates don't break things. Those are the packages the QA Team puts
</I>><i> > its limited resources on (doesn't mean the QA Team provides the support
</I>><i> > themselves, this is maintainer work, but they check that good support is
</I>><i> > provided) : testing, helping the maintainers to watch for security
</I>><i> > problems... The maintainers are responsible for their package, but the QA
</I>><i> > Team double-checks updates for stable releases. - supported packages
</I>><i> > (every other package) : those are maintained packages, however the QA
</I>><i> Team
</I>><i> > doesn't have to check them. It's up to the maintainer to check the
</I>><i> package
</I>><i> > and updates quality. - unsupported packages are dropped.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Are we heading for 1), 2), 3), or any other option ?
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Of course, with unlimited resources, options 1 and 3 would be equivalent,
</I>><i> > everything would have the "top guaranteed support" :)
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Best regards
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Samuel Verschelde
</I>><i> > Packager/QA Team/User
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>><i> having read misc's lenghty and almost political proposal, i suggest a 4th
</I>><i> option (even though i'm not part of QAteam either):
</I>><i>
</I>><i> 4) dynamically distributed focus:
</I>><i> - level 1: BuildSystem-required packages (all packages used for buildnodes)
</I>><i> - level 2: everything that is minimally required to boot and do stuff
</I>><i> - level 3: popular server packages
</I>><i> - level 4: release focus (everything that's defaultly installed by a
</I>><i> release)
</I>><i> - level 4b: stage images
</I>><i> - level 5: the rest
</I>><i>
</I>><i> depending on resources and certain timings; focus should be spread
</I>><i> according
</I>><i> to desires at that time.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> eg:
</I>><i> - i imagine that level 1 could be discussed between sysadm and qateam
</I>><i> during
</I>><i> BS-updates
</I>><i> - i imagine that level 2 would be the primary focus
</I>><i> - i imagine that level 4 could be more important during release times
</I>><i> - i imagine that level 5 would probably not be focussed by QA unless
</I>><i> unlimited
</I>><i> resources
</I>><i> - i imagine that level 3 would probably be good if resources would be
</I>><i> growing,
</I>><i> and possibly level 4 if there's enough resources.
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>><i> - i agree that testing should be open to anyone
</I>><i> - i agree that karma could not be a bad idea, but suggest that QAteam give
</I>><i> more karma (perhaps even on the karmic state of that person)
</I>><i> - i also would suggest that at the time of alpha release, we should do a
</I>><i> contest on testing and bugfinding; so that we could gather enough testers;
</I>><i> and
</I>><i> possibly even extra packagers or qateam people.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> WDYT?
</I>><i>
</I>
Option 4 sounds good, it also shows a little bit the responsibilities of
each team.
I would like to add a level 3b which differs between server-only and
desktop.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Greetings
Daniel Kreuter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20101201/1604e755/attachment-0001.html>
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001566.html">[Mageia-dev] Support policy
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001570.html">[Mageia-dev] Support policy
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1568">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1568">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1568">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1568">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
