On Friday 08 July 2005 11:46 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the
dev implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug
before actually doing something about it/. And I don't mean to pick on
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
(a) Its not a waste of time, and it is a FACT that peer review improves
quality.
I don't think anyone is disputing that it would be a beneficial concept, in
terms of improving quality and feedback.
However the suggestion you are making is really not practical in our
Dear Nathan,
On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 12:04 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
party before marking it done.
Great! Thank you for your offer to review our bugfixes. Please start
right away.
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Brix
--
R Hill posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 10
Jul 2005 01:39:18 -0600:
Marco Matthies wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
The person reporting the bug can reopen the bug, as he/she is in a
perfect position to test the fix.
Just a thought I've had from time to time - why can't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
Dear Nathan,
On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 12:04 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
party before marking it done.
Great! Thank you for your offer to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent
party before marking it done.
That's reasonable, but I don't see that party being a Team Lead or even
a dev. If there's a bug filed
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be
verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done.
That's not a problem, that's an opinion.
I'm not at all convinced that not having every bug
On Sunday 10 July 2005 22:55, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
What do you think about adding the step only to certain critical
products, such as Portage or maybe Catalyst or even the Installation Docs?
Portage doesn't have a team lead as such. All bug traffic is delivered to all
members via email
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be
verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done.
That's not a problem,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Drake wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
What do you think about adding the step only to certain critical
products, such as Portage or maybe Catalyst or even the Installation Docs?
You're now significantly altering your proposal, from
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:08:41 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that:
|
| Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified and
| peer reviewed. It should be verified by the reporter or another user.
| If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:08:41 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that:
|
| Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified and
|
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
Good point. See my reply to Jon Portnoy for the latest revision of the
idea that would apply to everyone as an optional 'best practice'.
Again, it doesn't really work like this. The groups you describe are different
in nature, and certain procedures suit some groups
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:32:44 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Again, Gentoo is not a large corporation or Debian.
|
| I don't see how Gentoo's status (or rather lack thereof) as a
| corporation or Debian has anything to do with encouraging peer review.
You're taking methods from
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 09:14 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
Are you offering me a job? ;)
Are you applying for one?
No, really - I think the basic idea in your proposal is great. But
Gentoo is a community based open source software project, worked on by
volunteers in their spare time. I think
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
I'm assuming that this would only apply to cases where the dev has
provided a fix (in most cases I assume they would have reproduced the
problem). The reporter's test would have the benefits mentioned above,
and if the Team Lead tested, they could review the fix for
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:08:41AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified and peer
reviewed. It should be verified by the reporter or another user. If the
reporter or another user are unable or unwilling to verify the fix, the
Team Lead
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
Ah, okay. You're talking about patch review. Now this makes sense.
I've always considered the Verified status to be indicative that a third
party has been able to reproduce the bug, not that a fix has been
approved. My mistake.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
If the developer shortage was not as big as it is, we could probably
really do something with your proposition.
Then why not lay the ground work, documentation-wise, now? Then as you
add on developers they have a nice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Schlemmer wrote:
Problem is many of us have sometimes already too many bugs to care about
users reporting something, and then never coming back, not even talking
about keeping to poke the reporter to come back and say the fix works
fine,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jory A. Pratt wrote:
I have sat here and read you all rant on and on about these
issues,
Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to
*improve* QA.
but you still are not taking into account that when a bug is
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:11:17 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I do software development, systems integration, and bug squashing for
| a living.
Gentoo's 'moving target' development model is not the development model
used by your typical 'stable release once or twice per year'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
So when can we discuss the salaries you're going to pay the team leads
to waste fairly significant quantities of time staring over everybody's
shoulder? 8)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregorio Guidi wrote:
Any proposal that implies an enourmous increase of our human resources is
really useless for us.
Please accept the fact that we cannot change our resources at will, and adapt
any suggestion to this simple principle.
Now
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:11:17 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I do software development, systems integration, and bug squashing for
| a living.
Gentoo's 'moving target' development model is not the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:11:17 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I do software development, systems integration, and bug squashing for
| a living.
Gentoo's 'moving target' development model is not the
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
So when can we discuss the salaries you're going to pay the team leads
to waste fairly significant quantities of time staring over
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to
*improve* QA.
Some thoughts from a humble user:
Any improvement must neither excessively waste developer nor user time,
it is the most scarce resource. To optimize this, the common case must
be made
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco Matthies wrote:
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to
*improve* QA.
Some thoughts from a humble user:
Any improvement must neither excessively waste developer nor user time,
it
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:56:32 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I don't think any of the devs would suggest that *any* fix should be
| accepted without first testing it (under the current process). If you
| don't believe me, submit it an ebuild and keyword it as stable on a
|
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
So when can we discuss the salaries you're going to pay the team leads
to waste fairly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
I didn't say that.
I'm saying that (a) team leads do not want to waste their time in such a
way just to give you warm fuzzies (b) devs do not particularly want
their team lead reviewing every single action they take, it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
Jon Portnoy wrote:
I didn't say that.
I'm saying that (a) team leads do not want to waste their time in
such a
way just to give you warm fuzzies (b) devs do not particularly
want their team lead reviewing every single
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jory A. Pratt wrote:
Nathan you have this misconception that just cause a bug apears on
one system it is gonna apear on multiple systems.
What are you talking about? This whole discussion was framed with the
situation where the *developer*
Nathan L. Adams posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Fri, 08 Jul 2005 07:42:23 -0400:
Duncan wrote:
Well, not blocker g, but ...
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73181
This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the dev
implies that the reported
This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the dev
implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug before
actually doing something about it/. And I don't mean to pick on Jeffrey;
this seems to be a common habit among Gentoo devs.
that's because we got
36 matches
Mail list logo
