Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 04:34:39PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > I'd like to hear what potential bug reporters would like to see, rather > > than us trying to guess what they might think; therefore, I believe this > > bug should (well, could) be deferred to in-person discussion in Paris. > +1 I've added this to my list of things to do/discuss in Paris. Thank you all for this discussion so far! -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 04:34:39PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > That said, I think this bug report lacks a lot from input by non-Debian > > contributors. I'm here explicitly CCing the only two that wrote in the > > bug, probably not even knowing tha they are not automatically subscribed > > to the bug report… > > Oh, that's indeed the case. I was assuming I'm automatically subscribed, > because that's what every other bug tracker does (github, bugzilla, > gitlab, jira, ...). And since there is no "subscribe me" checkbox, I didn't > noticed and still don't know how to subscribe myself... Right, uh? ;) There have been countless discussions on changing this behaviour, but nothing happened. From *our* use case this behaviour works great, since there are several of us who mass-file bugs on the order of the hundreds/thousands, and they really care about following the possible ensuing discussion. At any rate, to subscribe to a bug here you need to send an email (heh) to n-subscr...@bugs.debian.org, so 910541-subscr...@bugs.debian.org for this bug. the content is ignored. it will then send back an email asking for confirmation, to which you need to just reply without changing the conent/subject. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:51:49PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Tryin to consider myself an active contributor to diffoscope, I'd hate
> to have two different places to check for bugs. That probably goes for
> all the other project that are non debian specific though (I remember
> reading about people advocating for upstream developers to check their
> downstream bug trackers).
Personally I find BTS usage "a little" cumbersome for newcomers. I think
I created under 10 bugs there and almost every time I had some troubles.
Like "why doesn't it like Package: put where I put it", or "how to set
upstream bug url". This are all trivial things if you're used to, but
lack clear guidance for others. Web based bug trackers are nice, because
they show some kind of template automatically. Either as a set of
combo boxes ("choose package", "choose version", ...), or pre-filled
template for a bug report. In this regard, the link Mattia added helps a
lot.
> That said, I think this bug report lacks a lot from input by non-Debian
> contributors. I'm here explicitly CCing the only two that wrote in the
> bug, probably not even knowing tha they are not automatically subscribed
> to the bug report…
Oh, that's indeed the case. I was assuming I'm automatically subscribed,
because that's what every other bug tracker does (github, bugzilla,
gitlab, jira, ...). And since there is no "subscribe me" checkbox, I didn't
noticed and still don't know how to subscribe myself...
> I'd like to hear what potential bug reporters would like to see, rather
> than us trying to guess what they might think; therefore, I believe this
> bug should (well, could) be deferred to in-person discussion in Paris.
+1
--
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Tryin to consider myself an active contributor to diffoscope, I'd hate to have two different places to check for bugs. That probably goes for all the other project that are non debian specific though (I remember reading about people advocating for upstream developers to check their downstream bug trackers). That said, I think this bug report lacks a lot from input by non-Debian contributors. I'm here explicitly CCing the only two that wrote in the bug, probably not even knowing tha they are not automatically subscribed to the bug report… I'd like to hear what potential bug reporters would like to see, rather than us trying to guess what they might think; therefore, I believe this bug should (well, could) be deferred to in-person discussion in Paris. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Holger wrote: > > The extra work I am refering to is, from experience, the extra cognitive > > and remarkably-stressful load when you have 3+ avenues for people to file > > issues, bugs and PRs, etc. (Mirroring was automated before.) > > I'm not sure I understand. First, its 2 avenues, not 3+. Didn't some of the previously-enumerated combinations had 3+ routes to filing such things? Even if not, more than one is sub-optimal at the very least. It is a shame you don't see the overhead as being meaningful enough to remark upon. Perhaps it's "another lamby thing" but — not to put too much stress on this angle — not appreciating and considering the prefered workflows of the folks doing the maintenance itself seems a little… short-sighted at best. Very happy to discuss in Paris. > Speaking of stressful, I rather find it stressful to see all those > comment notifications on irc *and* via mail, kind of similar how I [..] (These seem like separate issues; very happy to discuss, alas away from #910541.) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > before answering, some questions about these scenarios:
> To be clear, these aren't the full enumeration of possible scenarios
> nor a request that we choose one or vote, simply a way of trying to
> short-cut exchanging paragraphs of text and confusing each other.
sure
> > > a) Some hybrid where we have the code remain on salsa yet mirror it on
> > > Github. Somewhat like the situation ~12 months ago.
> >
> > where would we track the upstream issues in a.)?
> (I guess the BTS to differentiate it from 'b'? *shrug*)
right
> > e.)
> I was immediately thinking of using the existing gitlab.org instance
> but feel free to split if you feel like it. (The idea of maintaining our
> own Gitlab instance does not sound like a particularly good use of our
> time.)
no, no, I absolutly dont want us to run gitlab...
(gitlab.org these days btw redirects to gitlab.com... :)
> The extra work I am refering to is, from experience, the extra cognitive
> and remarkably-stressful load when you have 3+ avenues for people to file
> issues, bugs and PRs, etc. (Mirroring was automated before.)
I'm not sure I understand. First, its 2 avenues, not 3+. And then we
will either fix upstream issues submitted to the Debian BTS immediatly
or immediatly forward those issues to our upstream tracker, which will
be the canonical location for (upstream bugs).
Speaking of stressful, I rather find it stressful to see all those
comment notifications on irc *and* via mail, kind of similar how I find
it stressful to be cc:ed when I'm subscribed anyway. But then I also
know that some people find those useful (to receive) or easy (to send
("my mailprogramm does those cc:s automatically")) so I try to live with
them.
In a (somewhat) similar way I think we should make it very easy to
submit bugs and I believe the easiest way for most people today is
github.com.
But maybe I'm wrong and Arnout is right when he says that creating a
salsa account is easy too.
Finally, maybe this is something we should revisit in Paris, when there are
many non-Debian contributors around?
--
cheers,
Holger
---
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:18 PM Chris Lamb wrote: > c) Make salsa the canonical location, enable issues on it and use it > for MRs. "Forward" issues upstream to salsa from the BTS. > > d) Make GitHub the canonical location and use it for PRs and issues. > Remove diffoscope entirely from salsa & "forward" issues to GitHub > from the BTS. > > e) Make GitLab the canonical location for both code and use it for MRs > and issues. Remove diffoscope entirely from salsa and forward > "issues" here from the BTS. As a not-really-Debian would-be contributor (though admittedly I do have some Debian background), these all seem like fine options to me, not much preference between them. While salsa is Debian-centric, it seems easy enough to create a guest account, so that wouldn't bother me. I can see how having duplication between the BTS and the 'upstream' tracker could be cumbersome, though - but perhaps there are tools to make forwarding/tracking less painful? Seems like something that would benefit many projects. Arnout
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Dear Holger, > before answering, some questions about these scenarios: To be clear, these aren't the full enumeration of possible scenarios nor a request that we choose one or vote, simply a way of trying to short-cut exchanging paragraphs of text and confusing each other. > > a) Some hybrid where we have the code remain on salsa yet mirror it on > > Github. Somewhat like the situation ~12 months ago. > > where would we track the upstream issues in a.)? (I guess the BTS to differentiate it from 'b'? *shrug*) > > e) Make GitLab the canonical location for both code and use it for MRs > > and issues. Remove diffoscope entirely from salsa and forward > > "issues" here from the BTS. > > you mean a gitlab.com instance in e.)? I was immediately thinking of using the existing gitlab.org instance but feel free to split if you feel like it. (The idea of maintaining our own Gitlab instance does not sound like a particularly good use of our time.) > > It is very easy to overloop what a big mental barrier and annoyance it > > is to have to do this extra work. > > understood but what extra work exactly? of course we should automate > mirroring... The extra work I am refering to is, from experience, the extra cognitive and remarkably-stressful load when you have 3+ avenues for people to file issues, bugs and PRs, etc. (Mirroring was automated before.) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Hi Chris, On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:15:59PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > But I think we want to move something distro agnostic, and salsa.d.o > > is very much Debian centric, so I think we should look for something > > else. I'd be fine to using github.com or gitlab.com or foobar. > Let's try and enumerate some of the potential options here so we aren't > lost or confusing each other in paragraphs (or otherwise letting this go > on for too long): thanks, this seems useful! :) before answering, some questions about these scenarios: > a) Some hybrid where we have the code remain on salsa yet mirror it on > Github. Somewhat like the situation ~12 months ago. where would we track the upstream issues in a.)? > b) Another frankenstein hybrid where we have the code remain on salsa > & mirror on Github, but move issue tracking to salsa. > > c) Make salsa the canonical location, enable issues on it and use it > for MRs. "Forward" issues upstream to salsa from the BTS. > > d) Make GitHub the canonical location and use it for PRs and issues. > Remove diffoscope entirely from salsa & "forward" issues to GitHub > from the BTS. > > e) Make GitLab the canonical location for both code and use it for MRs > and issues. Remove diffoscope entirely from salsa and forward > "issues" here from the BTS. you mean a gitlab.com instance in e.)? > I'm not *really* that fussed philosophically but as someone who has > done a lot of the diffoscope coding over the past years I just want to > remove as much day-to-day infrastructure overhead with respect to > collating, collapsing, merging issues and suchforth. nods, same here. plus I want it easy for new non-Debian contributors. (Wish I'm sure you want too.) > It is very easy to overloop what a big mental barrier and annoyance it > is to have to do this extra work. understood but what extra work exactly? of course we should automate mirroring... -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Hi Holger, > But I think we want to move something distro agnostic, and salsa.d.o > is very much Debian centric, so I think we should look for something > else. I'd be fine to using github.com or gitlab.com or foobar. Let's try and enumerate some of the potential options here so we aren't lost or confusing each other in paragraphs (or otherwise letting this go on for too long): a) Some hybrid where we have the code remain on salsa yet mirror it on Github. Somewhat like the situation ~12 months ago. b) Another frankenstein hybrid where we have the code remain on salsa & mirror on Github, but move issue tracking to salsa. c) Make salsa the canonical location, enable issues on it and use it for MRs. "Forward" issues upstream to salsa from the BTS. d) Make GitHub the canonical location and use it for PRs and issues. Remove diffoscope entirely from salsa & "forward" issues to GitHub from the BTS. e) Make GitLab the canonical location for both code and use it for MRs and issues. Remove diffoscope entirely from salsa and forward "issues" here from the BTS. I'm not *really* that fussed philosophically but as someone who has done a lot of the diffoscope coding over the past years I just want to remove as much day-to-day infrastructure overhead with respect to collating, collapsing, merging issues and suchforth. It is very easy to overloop what a big mental barrier and annoyance it is to have to do this extra work. (... not to mention how OCD-triggering it is to have duplicates, etc.) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
About issues: We can't change where the users create bug reports, only suggest the correct place to do it. The extra work for BTS/salsa issues (if enabled) for me is inevitable. About the move from salsa.d.o, the question is: salsa.d.o can be used for general projects born in debian or is most suited for debian specific projects? If salsa.d.o is suited, the next step should be enable the issues in the repository and handle the work of manage duplicated issues between the repository and the BTS, while the users understand the correct place to create issues. If as Holger suggests, salsa.d.o is very much Debian centric then has sense look for a new home for diffoscope and maybe other rb repositories (eg website). Personally i expect not. Regards, JMPC
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Dear Chris, On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 03:36:55PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > I'm sorry this appears to have upset you so much I'm afraid I'm > somewhat struggling to see the full extent why. and > Naturally, if I thought this would have been a problem I would not have > pushed the button. sure, I never doubted that! :) As I tried to explain was the combination of the immediate action itself, coming from a discussion which was just started, combined with explaining/announcing this action with a screenshot (which itself I'm sure was ment 'funny' or geeky or some harmless/nice thing). > Not only was the entire GitHub organisation empty (and was at least > since the salsa migration), it was highly misleading and, naturally, we > can recreate it within 60 seconds. It has been that way for months, so I dont understand the perceived hurry. Also that organisation still had members (which surely can be added easily), so I think my main complaint is what I wrote above: the combination of... (see above :) anyhow, i dont hold any grudge or anything and would prefer to move on with the question at hand: > (I also would have thought that any solution to /potential/ duplication > of issues between the Debian BTS and salsa would not be to introduce a > _third_ entity anyway, 2nd, we dont have issues on salsa enabled. > and alas GitHub Issues cannot really be used > without also duplicating the code there too, making the workflow for > code even worse too. Indeed, this is what I was definitely finding > before when we had a mirror.) so let's get the mirror back and track upstream issues on github? I was going to write "Or let's accept that diffoscope is a 'Debian Reproducible Builds Project' and use the BTS or salsa for upstream bug tracking too" but then I realized that we have the same problem with eg the website, though there it's probably less a problem as we strive less for drive-by contributors there. But I think we want to move something distro agnostic, and salsa.d.o is very much Debian centric, so I think we should look for something else. I'd be fine to using github.com or gitlab.com or foobar. -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Dear Holger, > […] I'm sorry this appears to have upset you so much I'm afraid I'm somewhat struggling to see the full extent why. Not only was the entire GitHub organisation empty (and was at least since the salsa migration), it was highly misleading and, naturally, we can recreate it within 60 seconds. (I also would have thought that any solution to /potential/ duplication of issues between the Debian BTS and salsa would not be to introduce a _third_ entity anyway, and alas GitHub Issues cannot really be used without also duplicating the code there too, making the workflow for code even worse too. Indeed, this is what I was definitely finding before when we had a mirror.) Naturally, if I thought this would have been a problem I would not have pushed the button. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 03:21:41PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > Oh sure, we are all in agreement here but users of diffoscope in Debian > are likely to file their generic issues in the Debian bug tracker, > resulting in duplication. I dont think this is a problem, or rather a problem with diffoscope, but rather with all the other 26000 source packages too. And the solution is simple and the same as everywhere: forward those bugs to the upstream tracker. (just that we dont have an upstream tracker atm...) -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Juan, > If the program aims to a broader audience (multiple distros), the > project repository is the right place to report issues. Oh sure, we are all in agreement here but users of diffoscope in Debian are likely to file their generic issues in the Debian bug tracker, resulting in duplication. (And where do Debian-specific issues go? salsa does not seem right for this...) These is the issues we are discussing, otherwise it would be "easy" to just move! Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Hi all. My way of thinking: If the program is only for debian, bugs.d.o is a right place to report issues. If the program aims to a broader audience (multiple distros), the project repository is the right place to report issues. Also, issues specific to debian can be filled alternatively in bugs.d.o and later 'sent upstream' the fixes to the project repository. About the need for create an account in salsa.d.o to report issues, is the same case in gitlab, github, bitbucket, etc.., the user always needs to create an account the first time (i don't think that it is complicated). Regards, JMPC. On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:21 AM Holger Levsen wrote: > > Dear Chris, > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 10:33:49PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > (Adjusting severity only because important severity bugs are treated > > somewhat different in some interfaces, but agree this is more > > severe than "just another" wishlist entry.) > > I agree, was thinking the same when filing the bug... > > > > - the project on salsa has issues disabled (but would require a login on > > > salsa anyway), still filing bugs in a webbrowser is something many > > > people want to do today, so I think maybe we should enable issues? > > > > No strong objection to the principle except that we would then have > > some duplication between the two trackers. > > while I do agree that duplication is a problem, I think having bugs not > filed because "it's complicated" is worse. > > > I'm thinking specifically of those times when I'd like to pick up on a > > previous issue, but then would need to "mentally merge" two lists of > > bugs, filtering any potential duplicates, etc. > > we could make the habbit to always file a debian bug and set it > forwarded to the github issue if we'd agree to use github issues... > > but... > > > > - there is still https://github.com/ReproducibleBuilds but thats empty, > > > so noone could file issues there. > > Well, this one is easily "fixed": > > https://i.imgur.com/vXbuKYU.png > > sigh. for two reasons: > > first, I find the style of explaining an issue by the means of a > screenshot to be, dunno, passive aggressive, or maybe just annoying? its > definitly not accessable not stored in the bts, and requires everyone > reading the bts mail to go to a graphical webbrowser (& be online) to > see what you have done... so for those who have not followed that link, > Chris deleted https://github.com/ReproducibleBuilds > > second, I was basically suggesting to discuss using the github tracker > and instead of allowing the discussion you killed it within minutes > after my report. surely we could recreate the github project again, but > that would mean everybody again needs to apply to become a member etc. > > I actually would have been in favor of allowing people to report issues > on github, just because it has 40mio users, which includes most people > working on reproducible builds, while a.) salsa has a few thousand and > hardly anyone not involved in Debian and b.) filing bugs via mail (while > I like it a lot) is something many people dislike. > > But I guess this discussion is academic now. :( > > > -- > cheers, > Holger > > --- >holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org >PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C > ___ > Reproducible-builds mailing list > reproducible-bui...@alioth-lists.debian.net > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Dear Chris, On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 10:33:49PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > (Adjusting severity only because important severity bugs are treated > somewhat different in some interfaces, but agree this is more > severe than "just another" wishlist entry.) I agree, was thinking the same when filing the bug... > > - the project on salsa has issues disabled (but would require a login on > > salsa anyway), still filing bugs in a webbrowser is something many > > people want to do today, so I think maybe we should enable issues? > > No strong objection to the principle except that we would then have > some duplication between the two trackers. while I do agree that duplication is a problem, I think having bugs not filed because "it's complicated" is worse. > I'm thinking specifically of those times when I'd like to pick up on a > previous issue, but then would need to "mentally merge" two lists of > bugs, filtering any potential duplicates, etc. we could make the habbit to always file a debian bug and set it forwarded to the github issue if we'd agree to use github issues... but... > > - there is still https://github.com/ReproducibleBuilds but thats empty, > > so noone could file issues there. > Well, this one is easily "fixed": > https://i.imgur.com/vXbuKYU.png sigh. for two reasons: first, I find the style of explaining an issue by the means of a screenshot to be, dunno, passive aggressive, or maybe just annoying? its definitly not accessable not stored in the bts, and requires everyone reading the bts mail to go to a graphical webbrowser (& be online) to see what you have done... so for those who have not followed that link, Chris deleted https://github.com/ReproducibleBuilds second, I was basically suggesting to discuss using the github tracker and instead of allowing the discussion you killed it within minutes after my report. surely we could recreate the github project again, but that would mean everybody again needs to apply to become a member etc. I actually would have been in favor of allowing people to report issues on github, just because it has 40mio users, which includes most people working on reproducible builds, while a.) salsa has a few thousand and hardly anyone not involved in Debian and b.) filing bugs via mail (while I like it a lot) is something many people dislike. But I guess this discussion is academic now. :( -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 10:22:56AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:15:36AM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > Filling bugs in web browser is indeed something many people expect. > (grumpy person here that don't understand those people…!) I think you're just officially an old person now. Soon you will be part of the Debian grandparents team! ;) > > What about providing appropriate "mailto" link to open new issue on BTS, > > including all the magic headers, bug template etc? > > Like the "reply" one existing already on BTS (I'm using it right now, I > > even get quoted message I reply to!). > I just added such a link in https://diffoscope.org/ - what do you all > think? :) awesome, thanks a lot, much much better! -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:15:36AM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > Filling bugs in web browser is indeed something many people expect. (grumpy person here that don't understand those people…!) > What about providing appropriate "mailto" link to open new issue on BTS, > including all the magic headers, bug template etc? > Like the "reply" one existing already on BTS (I'm using it right now, I > even get quoted message I reply to!). I just added such a link in https://diffoscope.org/ - what do you all think? :) -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:33:49 +0100 Chris Lamb wrote: > > - the project on salsa has issues disabled (but would require a login on > > salsa anyway), still filing bugs in a webbrowser is something many > > people want to do today, so I think maybe we should enable issues? > > No strong objection to the principle except that we would then have > some duplication between the two trackers. Filling bugs in web browser is indeed something many people expect. But having two issue trackers introduce a lot of problems. Add to your list ambiguity of issue numbers. What about providing appropriate "mailto" link to open new issue on BTS, including all the magic headers, bug template etc? Like the "reply" one existing already on BTS (I'm using it right now, I even get quoted message I reply to!). -- Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki Invisible Things Lab A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
severity 910541 normal thanks Dear Holger, > I just gave a small presentation about diffoscope at the mirage.io > hackretreat (which was well received) which resulted in people > wanting to file bugs against diffoscope, which turned out to be "complicated" Completely, 100%, agree. (Adjusting severity only because important severity bugs are treated somewhat different in some interfaces, but agree this is more severe than "just another" wishlist entry.) > - the project on salsa has issues disabled (but would require a login on > salsa anyway), still filing bugs in a webbrowser is something many > people want to do today, so I think maybe we should enable issues? No strong objection to the principle except that we would then have some duplication between the two trackers. I'm thinking specifically of those times when I'd like to pick up on a previous issue, but then would need to "mentally merge" two lists of bugs, filtering any potential duplicates, etc. Do we have any ideas to limit this? One rather brutal way of doing this would be to insist that diffoscope-on-the-BTS only had Debian-specific issues and salsa has everything else, forcing people to refile? Or that salsa is a superset of the BTS & just try and remember to file everything that arrives in the BTS to.. etc. Anyone have experience elsewhere that can help? > - the link "Bugs and feature requests" on https://diffoscope.org just > points to https://bugs.debian.org/src:diffoscope (Let's fix that when this issue is fixed; it would just need updating and/or expanding) > - there is still https://github.com/ReproducibleBuilds but thats empty, > so noone could file issues there. Well, this one is easily "fixed": https://i.imgur.com/vXbuKYU.png Best wishes, -- O // \\ Chris Lamb O Oreproducible-builds.org \\ // O
Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors
Package: diffoscope Severity: important Hi, I just gave a small presentation about diffoscope at the mirage.io hackretreat (which was well received) which resulted in people wanting to file bugs against diffoscope, which turned out to be "complicated": - the project on salsa has issues disabled (but would require a login on salsa anyway), still filing bugs in a webbrowser is something many people want to do today, so I think maybe we should enable issues? - the link "Bugs and feature requests" on https://diffoscope.org just points to https://bugs.debian.org/src:diffoscope - this is helpful for Debian developers but hardly for anyone else. - there is still https://github.com/ReproducibleBuilds but thats empty, so noone could file issues there. I've got no good idea how to fix this best, but I wanted to at least document this so we can come up with something better. It's unfortunate to say 'please file bugs' and then... -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
