Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>]

On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 12:04:24AM -0400, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> I have enough grounds to believe that quality lead job is to facilitate
> bug discovery and call upon developers to fix those bugs, because
> quality control people are usually not developers and control quality
> indirectly. 

I published the list of bugs that you implied we should keep secret so 
that other developers could fix the bugs, not so I could fix them 
myself.  Why are all my actions open to inconsistent criticisms?  You 
seem to hold impossible standards.

> Here me out, I never thought you'd embark on path of fixing
> problems by yourself, 

By no means am I fixing problems by myself.  I haven't fixed most of the 
bugs I've found myself, only a substantial minority that were quick 
fixes between waiting for compilations to finish.

> and I voted for you based not on your goals alone,
> but also on the presumption that you'd collaborate with developers. I am
> thinking now that I made a mistake.

This is completely baseless.  As I pointed out above, you're criticizing 
an action that's collaborative while criticizing me for not being 
cooperative generally.  Which is it?

> 
> Just so you appreciate the impact of Distrowatch, look at this:
> http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?action=find&find=distrowatch
> Eight of our developers mention Distrowatch as a resource of
> information, including our leader, and some came to SMGL via this site.
> Whatever you think of it, don't dismiss its value even if you personally
> don't see any.

I didn't say it was useless.  I said that our personally clicking 
distrowatch is futile because the substantial number of actual clicks 
come from distrowatch visitors, not our developers. (and I think hits 
per day may actually be validated via tricks like checking referrers to 
make sure they hit the page via a valid link and not a bot).

I don't think developers need to be wasting their time visiting 
distrowatch just to inflate an arbitrary number very ineffectively.  If 
we're going to be effective, we need to pick an effective method.

I also said the best way right now to increase distrowatch coverage was 
by releasing isos and implied that the lack of hits per day is most 
likely highly related to the lack of recent iso releases, while you were 
implying, in my estimation, that our grimoire bugs had a lot to do with 
it.  While both may contribute, I think the lion's share is from ISO 
releases.  I agree that grimoire bugs have something to do with it, 
which is why I volunteered to help take them on.  Nobody was doing QA 
work, while three people were working on an ISO.

> 
> And finally, I'd appreciate if you don't use profanity on the list.

I recognize no religions or temples to censor my speech.

Seth

> 
> Sergey.
> 
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 15:01 -0700, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 05:26:42PM -0400, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> > > Quoting Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>:
> > > 
> > > >In discussion during an admin meeting 50 stable bugs was the threshold
> > > >of acceptability to participants for a 1.0 release.  70's really not
> > > >that bad compared to where it was.
> > > 
> > > I should be attending more of those... It doesn't matter now, but fifty 
> > > is 
> > > way
> > > too many. In regards to "where it was:" where it is now is below the 
> > > radar
> > > level on Distrowatch or anywhere else I know, so let's not use this as a
> > > comparison.
> > 
> > Enough of this distrowatch bullshit.
> > 
> > 1) all this "hey go click distrowatch" is useless.
> > 
> > 2) ISO RELEASES ARE THE ONLY THING THAT GET SUBSTANTIAL DISTROWATCH 
> > COVERAGE (unless you are gentoo).  Reviews maybe but let's not astroturf 
> > reviews, please.  Front page profile turns into massive hits per day.  
> > If you're so concerned, buy a distrowatch ad for us.
> > 
> > 3) distrowatch because of rule (2) is the dumbest thing in the world.  
> > It's geared toward binary distros (unless you are gentoo).
> > 
> > I've only had a few weeks to reduce bug counts.  Everybody's partly 
> > responsible for this and if people write buggy code, buggy code will hit 
> > stable unless you never want people to see another stable grimoire 
> > release ever again.  Remember, we can shift benchmarks and goals at any 
> > time.  They aren't set by a baron from above.
> > 
> > Regarding (2) again, specifically the next ISO, a lot of improvement has 
> > happened that is behind the scenes on the ability to make a reproducible 
> > ISO.  We've learned a lot on this road, and I think we're pretty soon 
> > going to hit critical mass, but we need a solid 1.0 release for that.  
> > I'm doing everything I can to get us there, but part of going somewhere 
> > is knowing where you are.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> 

-- 
Seth Alan Woolley [seth at positivism.org], SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id 00BA3AF3 = 8BE0 A72E A47E A92A 0737  F2FF 7A3F 6D3C 00BA 3AF3
Quality Assurance Team Leader; Security Team Member, Leader Emeritus
Linux so advanced, it may as well be magic http://www.sourcemage.org
Elected Coordinating Committee Member, Secretary, and Finances Chair
Pacific Green Party of Oregon - Peace - http://www.pacificgreens.org

Attachment: pgppwxxr2Zkbm.pgp
Description: PGP signature