On 06/27/10 09:19 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2010-Jun-24 13:54:24 +0100, "Dr. David Kirkby"<[email protected]>
wrote:
Here's a suggestion, which I think could be useful.
If a reviewer sees that a bug on trac is an upstream bug, that they are required
to see evidence that this has been reported upstream before the fix gets a
positive review.
Hence
AUTHOR
MUST state he has reported the bug upstream, and if so how. Sometimes that will
be an email, but the ticket needs to say who it was emailed to and what date.
In general, I think this is a good idea
Excellent. Nobody so far has disagreed with the general principle.
but I think that 'must' is a
bit strong and there should be scope for exceptions.
Perhaps if there was only one developer, and he is now dead!
One issue that needs to be considered is that some projects seems to
treat bug reports as an affront and make it as difficult as possible
to report bugs.
Do you know of any project where it is difficult to report a bug upstream
because the upstream developers are regularly unhelpful? If there are any,
perhaps we should consider removing that part from Sage.
Many of the projects in Sage have multiple developers, and naturally some are
more helpful than others. Also, some people have off-days, and tend to react
aggressive one day, when another they will not.
So I don't see that a good reason would be "I've reported bugs before, and they
are always ignored".
How much effort should a trac bug author be forced to
go to to report a bug?
Are any of the following unreasonable?
* Look in SPKG.txt for an email
* Google for the package
* Ask on sage-devel hoping someone else will know. Give it 36 hours.
* Reading the documentation looking for a point of contact.
When should a fix be excluded from Sage solely
because the upstream package authors want to be difficult?
I find it hard to believe that a package has only unhelpful upstream developers.
I can think of packages which have multiple developers, where one developer in
particular is usually pretty unhelpful.
Even one developer is likely to have an off-day and react aggressively.
REVIEWER
MUST NOT GIVE POSITIVE REVIEW unless he/she is satisfied a bug has reported
upstream when appropriate.
Unless the author can demonstrate a good reason why he has not done so.
I have difficulty trying to find a circumstance where there would be a good
reason not to report the bug.
4) If it becomes clear that we don't know who to report the bug to, that would
need fixing in SPKG.txt
Does anyone know how many spkg's fall into this category?
I know some SPKG.txt files do not have much information, but with Google one can
normally find out who to report things to.
Dave
--
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
