Am Dienstag, den 10.05.2005, 20:55 +0200 schrieb Ronald S. Bultje: > The problem is circular. We need more people to help us figure such > stuff out, but in order to get those new people in, we need to spend > more time on each of those parts, too.
I have been hacking on non-core GTK/GNOME applications for a while and planned to get involved a bit into hunting bugzilla bugs a few months ago. Here is my experience: First I went through the (freshly created, back then) simple-bug list. I estimate that at least 50% of the bugs were IMO marked "gnome-love" falsely, because they either required discussion, required deep knowledge about many components IMO, or already had a patch attached. Some of that seemed to be the result of renaming "easy-fix" keyword, which was sometimes used in situations that may not be too suited for newbies. So today I went through the list again to find those bugs and write them down. The situation seems to have improved quite since then, but I still found plenty. Note that I was not picky to add something to the list and if something was unclear that alone qualified a bug to appear here, because I believe that especially gnome-love bugs should have a clear description of what needs to be done: Unclear. Requires discussion? http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163060 (epiphany) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140001 (gimp) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109035 (galeon) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139849 (epiphany) Requires discussion (is there a keyword that can be used to mark such bugs?) or requires a different fix then originally mentioned: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136912 (conglomerate) Needs help: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135596 (gnome-panel) I agree to comment #4 (implement or close - who takes a pick?): http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52026 (glib) Comment #19 by Jody Goldberg, has this happened? Can the bug be closed?: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90932 (libgnomeui) Not sure... does #1 mean this is already fixed? http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125457 (conglomerate) Status requested: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75989 (libgnomeui) If this should still be done, someone should deny the last comment: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45436 (nautilus) Unclear whether it is still valid: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61269 (nautilus) Patch: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111763 (gnome-applets) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159084 (gthumb) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79326 (gnome-terminal) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47054 (nautilus) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170364 (gnome-terminal) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155948 (gtk+) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115732 (epiphany) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170659 (gnome-applets) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150926 (gnome-applets) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86569 (nautilus) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52772 (glib) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88585 (nautilus) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155854 (gnome-print) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125226 (gnome-panel) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77108 (gnome-applets) Patch, target was 2.8: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101281 (gedit) Patch/Help needed: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62713 (nautilus) Unclear, patch needs to be reviewed: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155487 (gedit) Comment #4 made this a bit unclear for me; someone should probably clarify what exactly the desired behaviour is in both case: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115037 (nautilus) Should be commented (#5) or closed: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130220 (gtksourceview) Patch, should be accepted or discussed: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145121 (gtk+) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123578 (gnome-panel) The wording in the patch needs discussion; candidate for the usability list?: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144585 (gnome-panel) Still valid/already fixed?: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137539 (gedit) A bit unclear what the right solution is: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95111 (gnome-session) Requires discussion: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79189 (gnome-utils) 2. Patches are often not being reviewed. I submitted some 4 or 5 patches, only one very trivial patch of which was since reviewed (kudos to the Gimp developers); this was > two months ago. I am deliberately not pointing to those bugs to make clear that these are not the intention of this email. Knowing that there are >600 unreviewed patches in bugzilla I am trying to point to the general problem instead: Some people complain that there are no new developers getting involved in GNOME, but looking at the number of patches I believe there are - they are only not being accepted. So yes, I know the number of bug reports is huge, but *please*, bugs with patches should have a strong priority. -Samuel _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
