[Mageia-dev] Support policy

[Daniel Kreuter]

2010/12/1 Maarten Vanraes <maarten.vanraes at gmail.com>

> Op dinsdag 30 november 2010 13:31:08 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to discuss the support policy for Mageia.
> >
> > It would be interesting to know (or decide) where Mageia is heading,
> given
> > our limited resources : 1) focus on stability and security : few very
> well
> > equally supported packages. Apparently, this is where we're going for
> now.
> >  May be wise as a start, but I hope this is not our final destination,
> > because it means either very limited choice, or progressive diminution of
> > quality of support if the number of packages increases faster than the
> > dedicated resources. 2) focus on choice : many packages, but no support
> > policy. This would be really bad, I think we're not heading there, from
> > what I read. However, this is a danger if we start from option 1) and
> then
> > open wide the gates for importing packages, without setting a support
> > policy. 3) focus on both (this is my option). There would be 2 levels of
> > support : - top guaranteed support : those are the (few at start)
> packages
> > your can rely on almost blindly, they'll be updated in a timely manner,
> > and updates don't break things. Those are the packages the QA Team puts
> > its limited resources on (doesn't mean the QA Team provides the support
> > themselves, this is maintainer work, but they check that good support is
> > provided) : testing, helping the maintainers to watch for security
> > problems... The maintainers are responsible for their package, but the QA
> > Team double-checks updates for stable releases. - supported packages
> > (every other package) : those are maintained packages, however the QA
> Team
> > doesn't have to check them. It's up to the maintainer to check the
> package
> > and updates quality. - unsupported packages are dropped.
> >
> > Are we heading for 1), 2), 3), or any other option ?
> >
> > Of course, with unlimited resources, options 1 and 3 would be equivalent,
> > everything would have the "top guaranteed support" :)
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Samuel Verschelde
> > Packager/QA Team/User
>
>
> having read misc's lenghty and almost political proposal, i suggest a 4th
> option (even though i'm not part of QAteam either):
>
> 4) dynamically distributed focus:
> - level 1: BuildSystem-required packages (all packages used for buildnodes)
> - level 2: everything that is minimally required to boot and do stuff
> - level 3: popular server packages
> - level 4: release focus (everything that's defaultly installed by a
> release)
> - level 4b: stage images
> - level 5: the rest
>
> depending on resources and certain timings; focus should be spread
> according
> to desires at that time.
>
> eg:
> - i imagine that level 1 could be discussed between sysadm and qateam
> during
> BS-updates
> - i imagine that level 2 would be the primary focus
> - i imagine that level 4 could be more important during release times
> - i imagine that level 5 would probably not be focussed by QA unless
> unlimited
> resources
> - i imagine that level 3 would probably be good if resources would be
> growing,
> and possibly level 4 if there's enough resources.
>
>
> - i agree that testing should be open to anyone
> - i agree that karma could not be a bad idea, but suggest that QAteam give
> more karma (perhaps even on the karmic state of that person)
> - i also would suggest that at the time of alpha release, we should do a
> contest on testing and bugfinding; so that we could gather enough testers;
> and
> possibly even extra packagers or qateam people.
>
> WDYT?
>


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>