On 5/31/11 10:03 AM, Trevor Parscal wrote:
It's my expectation that this will always
fluctuate, never reach anything
resembling a stable rhythm, and that whether that's good or bad, that is and
will continue to be reality.
I understand how you feel, but that is unnecessarily pessimistic.
A lot of other projects of equal or greater size and complexity manage
to release much more frequently. And there are just as many voices
tugging in different directions.
So we know that the solution exists. We just have not taken the right
steps to achieve that solution.
Well, AFAIK our bottleneck is reviewing. I'm unaware of any concrete
steps that have been taken to get a scalable reviewing system happening.
I'm not saying nothing's been done, it's just that I've never seen
anyone say "okay, here's the plan".
Maybe this sounds like I'm volunteering for it, and I guess I would, but
it seems to me that the current users who can push have to come up with
a system that *they* trust. Whatever bright idea I have is going to go
down in flames if Tim et al. aren't fully committed to it and adequate
sacrifices are made in other areas to adjust to a new system. If pushing
more frequently isn't a priority for these users (or they are unable to
find the time to fix the current system) then I don't know what to do
Are we all in deadlock or something? Are the users who can push waiting
from some proposals/work from the rest of the community?
Neil Kandalgaonkar ( <neilk(a)wikimedia.org>