[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:26:46 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: On 03/12/2010 09:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in question but there's a difference of opinion here: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5 Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch team is the one in charge. Regards, Petteri So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch: Against (and my comments on why they don't apply): - Comments would only go to arch team after resolving: * maintainer is still in Cc or Reporter - Arch teams not in charge of fixing problems * If problems come up they deserve a new bug as a dependency * one bug per issue and a stabilization bug is about stabilization - Maintainer being able to decide when to go stable * Bug wranglers should still assign to maintainers for their ack * The maintainer assigns it to the arch team In support (and my comments in support): - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches - The arch teams are actually ones doing the work to resolve the bug * As they are the ones to mark it as resolved it makes sense for them to be the assignees So based on this I propose that I will write this down in appropriate places in to our documentation and commit a week from now. Please object if you don't agree and we can discuss some more. You ignored my point about this being completely moot once we start using flags in bugzilla for arch teams. We'll have to change the policy then to the maintainer being the assignee anyways. -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
On 04/11/2010 01:38 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: You ignored my point about this being completely moot once we start using flags in bugzilla for arch teams. We'll have to change the policy then to the maintainer being the assignee anyways. Then we will do it when that happens. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:41:34 +0300 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/11/2010 01:38 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: You ignored my point about this being completely moot once we start using flags in bugzilla for arch teams. We'll have to change the policy then to the maintainer being the assignee anyways. Then we will do it when that happens. Okay, thanks. -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
* Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org: So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch: In support (and my comments in support): - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches And if not only one arch or single arch is slacking? I guess you would find another gentle way to remind them. How about a tool generating mails to arch teams, which lists all STABLEREQ, KEQWORDREQ bugs to which the arch team is CC'ed for a month? (Or probably easier or possible at all: which weren't changed for 30 days.)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net wrote: * Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org: So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch: In support (and my comments in support): - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches And if not only one arch or single arch is slacking? I guess you would find another gentle way to remind them. How about a tool generating mails to arch teams, which lists all STABLEREQ, KEQWORDREQ bugs to which the arch team is CC'ed for a month? (Or probably easier or possible at all: which weren't changed for 30 days.) I'd opt for a webpage personally. I have found that push-nag systems work well at first until the nagging increases to a level where the nag-ee just filters the mail away. This happens often at work. For example I get emails telling me to delete unused perforce clients; but those mails just get marked as read by a filter and archived. Could we generate a bugzilla search for arch teams? Do arch teams already use existing bugzilla functionality? -A
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
Alec Warner wrote: Could we generate a bugzilla search for arch teams? Do arch teams already use existing bugzilla functionality? At least when i was with the ppc team, we had a bugzie search. And bugzie already sorts your query for you. I guess it could be made to only show keyword=STABLEREQ, bug changed = -1month since bug creation, assigned OR cc contains ppc@ or something like that. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:07:41 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches. Hasn't the running theme for the last couple weeks been about not touching packages you don't maintain and aren't throughly familiar with? ;) Anyways, it's simply not the arch team's job to fix the issues that pop up unless they somehow caused them. If there's a bug in the ebuild an arch tester missed it's the maintainer who is responsible for fixing it. I think the maintainer should always be the assignee. If/when we move to bugzilla flags for arch testing this is going to have to be how it works anyways. -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
On 03/14/2010 10:56 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:07:41 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches. Hasn't the running theme for the last couple weeks been about not touching packages you don't maintain and aren't throughly familiar with? ;) Anyways, it's simply not the arch team's job to fix the issues that pop up unless they somehow caused them. If there's a bug in the ebuild an arch tester missed it's the maintainer who is responsible for fixing it. You misunderstood what I meant. The action I am talking about is reopening the bug. Any developer who notices that a bug should be reopened should reopen it so it gets noticed. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:21:13 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: You misunderstood what I meant. The action I am talking about is reopening the bug. Any developer who notices that a bug should be reopened should reopen it so it gets noticed. Sorry, my mistake. -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
Samuli Suominen posted on Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:21:52 +0200 as excerpted: On 03/13/2010 07:07 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches. Let's not forget that users are really supposed to open new bugs instead of commenting on the resolved ones although I know there are users out there who rather comment on a two year old only distantly related bug than open a new one. I would love to see a bugzilla feature that would entirely disable commenting on closed bugs like on archlinux's bugtracking system[1] [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-gene...@archlinux.org/msg11996.html That might possibly need Request reopen button of somesort, or we could just always require people to open new bugs Often people just wish to argue about the closing status, after the bug has been resolved... Keep in mind that disabling further comments would disable genuine followups as well. There have been a few times where a bug I've filed was closed before I found the ultimate cause of the bug (my config or fat-fingering), where I leave a comment when I do find the trigger, to hopefully help out others who might have the issue later. There's also the issue of thanks, especially when it was a bug of my own causing and the dev took the time to explain what I was doing or had failed to do. Awhile back I asked here if thanks was appropriate in such cases, or simply the bother of an extra mail on an already closed bug and thus better to skip, and was told go for it, thanks is unfortunately quite rare, and thus appreciated because bug squashing can sometimes feel pretty thankless, so I've tried to do so tho I can't say I always do. I'd feel quite strange (and expect it would NOT be appreciated, so would simply skip it) if I had to open a new bug just to say thanks for fixing the old one! But a note about opening a new bug if it's still an issue and you're not the author and therefore can't reopen this one, possibly suggesting bug clone, would probably be useful, I agree with petteri/betelgeuse there. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in question but there's a difference of opinion here: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5 Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch team is the one in charge. I swear there used to be a piece of documentation that said that the final arch on a stabilization bug should be assigned and the maintainer moved to CC. I can't find it any more, but that's probably where this idea came from. It never really made sense to me but I've done it on several occasions. -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch
Ryan Hill wrote: I can't find it any more, but that's probably where this idea came from. It never really made sense to me but I've done it on several occasions. me too. I guess it's been handed down for ages. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
