On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:14:04AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:37 +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 02:47:45PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > > We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
> > > remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
> > > still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do.
> > >
> > > In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've received the most
> > > complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a
> > > way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation,
> > > perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, "for advanced users only" or "use
> > > at
> > > your own risk"?
> > >
> > > --kurt
> > >
> >
> > I perfectly agree with this request, we should provide the choice and clear
> > point that out (along with all the correlated risks) instead of simply
> > "hiding" the option. And I sincerely hope there's no intention to remove
> > stage1/stage2 tarballs in the future because that would be a really a bad
> > thing
> > imho.
>
> The problem with listing risks and such is the users aren't listening.
>
> They are ignoring our warnings and breaking their own systems, then
> filing bugs. The problem is that these are *not* bugs, but issues with
> incompatibility. It is impossible to install something that requires a
> configured kernel before you have a configured kernel.
>
I still think that pointing things with a *huge* warning shouldn't be
a problem...otherwise we would always end up "hiding" things prone to user
error because we think that users are listening. At least let's draft a nice
and visible document explaining the change and why people should not use this
anymore since judging from the complaints lots of people just don't get it.
> Now, on the topic of the tarballs.
>
> Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
> tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
>
Oh well nothing. I don't doubt that userwise they are not needed...but there
might be other needs developerwise where the two stages are useful.
So fair enough, remove it from the docs...but at least let's explain why we
are doing this since complaints are there (legit or not).
--
Andrea Barisani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .*.
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer V
( )
PGP-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc ( )
0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E ^^_^^
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
