Res: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Tue May 4 17:40:40 UTC 2010
Peter Jones wrote:
> I'm sorry you don't like it, but you've had ample occasion to come up with
> a better idea, and you have roundly refused to make any attempt at doing
"I'm sorry you don't like my plate of Merde Provençale, but you've had ample
occation to come up with a better recipe for feces, and you have roundly
refused to make any attempt at doing so."
See the problem there? (Hint: the basic assumption that you want to eat sh*t
in the first place!)
You were only interested in "better ideas" under a very narrow initial
assumption which I don't share. Of course I was not interested in trying to
coming up with "better ideas" under those conditions, as I don't believe
that to be possible in the first place. You did not give any consideration
to the fact that your initial premises may be broken and incorrect (which
they happen to be).
> You keep saying that, and it just shows a complete disregard for testing
> in general. Asking people to test it and simply flag that they've done so
> with success (or not) is very much not bureaucracy.
I don't believe testing to be the answer to everything. It's far from
infallible, it's also not the only possible form of QA. There are changes
which don't need testing, for example if a patch was dropped because we
thought it wasn't needed anymore, and it turns out the patch is still
needed, readding the patch needs no testing whatsoever because the patch has
ALREADY been tested, plus it's fixing a regression. This is why the latest
qt update went out straight to stable. And no, testing did NOT catch the
regression. Right after the update went stable, we got the report. You have
to accept that most users will NOT try out a package until after it hits
> We trust their intent and their ability, because that's reasonable. We
> don't trust that they never make mistakes, because that's insane. We all
> make mistakes. The karma system is an attempt to mitigate the damage when
> that (very frequent) eventuality occurs.
You need to prove that "very frequent" assertion. I don't see this as being
true at all, quite the opposite. It almost never happens with the current
system. Maintainers ALREADY use testing and keep feedback into account. Why
do we need to FORCE them to? We should TRUST our maintainers!
More information about the devel