Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 17:50, Sven Neumann wrote:

Because we can't do anything about the bugs. Nobody but the packager
can. The situation would be different if the tools used to build the
binary packages would be in GNOME CVS. That would certainly qualify
the project for also using the bug tracker. But as long as people
build GIMP using proprietary scripts that they don't publish anywhere,
I am going to show no tolerance towards them.

This was also my main argument against tracking any 3rd party installers
in GNOME Bugzilla. The GIMP developers have no way of fixing a bug even
if they know how it should be done.

Maybe a requirement for tracking installers should be that the author has to create a comprehensive list of the components of the installer, including version numbers and the locations he got the components from.
Additionally, a list of changes (installed files, registry keys, ...) done to the system could help, too.

But seeing the waste amount of bugs filed primarily for win32 installers
since we released 2.0.0 I am slowly starting to change my mind. Perhaps
a '3rd party installer' or similar component should be added to the GIMP
product. Bugs can then be re-assigned to that component instead of being
resolved NOTGNOME.

Um, don't you mix two things here? Of course, users who report bugs are using gimp binaries they got from somewhere. the huge amount of duplicated reports has other reasons.

IMHO, reporting bugs in bugzilla without checking for duplicates is too easy, maybe all similiar reports should be displayed one after another and the user should have to click a "next" button.

At least I think we should try it out and see how it works out.

I agree.


The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org    | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Sodipodi > http://sodipodi.sf.net | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/sodipodi
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to