4.0.3 backport-a-thon?

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Saturday 15 March 2008, Stephan Binner wrote:
> On Saturday 15 March 2008 12:50:07 Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
> > So either step in helping in make sure everything is fine or stop
> > polemizing pointlessly. Thanks.
>
> I have a point: it went bad last time and you say that you will work the
> same way (blind backporting without any check of compilation/functionality)
> again.

i think the issue is that there is a way of making your point in a 
constructive manner.

the above explanation is better than "you're naive", which had far too high a 
emotion:content ratio, which it takes its toll on those around us.[1] but we 
can do even better than your point above. let's try:

the symptoms of the problem included:

	The 4.0.2 backport ended up with various problems: instabilities, regressions 
	An enumeration of those problems would include....?
		(i heard of the Monster 900 Pixel Panel, e.g.)

the source of the problem was:

	Innadequate testing post-backport
	Not enough selectivity in what to backport vs what to leave for 4.1
		Some patches that were backported were either high risk or low reward

a solution to the problem probably includes:

	Testing backports as they happen
	Being more selective in the choice of patches to backport

i'll be around to test backports (though more help there would be great, as i 
may miss things), and we can all work together to be more selective in what 
to backport. if you have more items to add to any of the sections above[2] 
(or even just more detail) please do so.




[1] i'm included in that; i feel ok again (thanks to both Will and Sebas for 
helping out in various ways, btw), but the last few months of dealing with 
such comments from various angles left me extremely raw emotionally and i 
feel it has done long-term damage to a few relationships between myself 
others in the project. that sucks.

so there are consequences. i'd really like the plasma project to avoid that, 
and i think we had been doing a *very* good job of that. as people who 
weren't here before entered that changed, and i don't think that's fair of 
those people to do have brought that into this project. it was also not great 
that i didn't step in and say these things right from the beginning.

i'm going to try a lot harder to protect the peace in this project, and i 
won't be allowing crap to sit on this list and fester until it erupts into a 
real set of problems. if anyone has a personal issue with that, please be 
sure to close the door on your way out.

[2] i think it's interesting that all three attemps to communicate this 
("you're naive", "it went bad last time and you say that you will work the 
same way" and the above) all come from the same perspective: 4.0.3 
backporting can be done better.

but of the three one will probably result in actual improvement, one will only 
result in annoyance and the other is perhaps a way to start a conversation on 
the matter but isn't a conclusion. which is which should be obvious.


-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/panel-devel/attachments/20080315/9864a8cc/attachment-0001.pgp