Sorry, I forgot to mention: Please restrict answers to the gnome-bugsquad list instead of following up on every list.
-Samuel Am Dienstag, den 10.05.2005, 23:21 +0200 schrieb Samuel Abels: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Gnome-bugsquad mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad _______________________________________________ Gnome-bugsquad mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad
