On Saturday, September 11, 2010 22:51:23 Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 20:59:25 +1200 Alistair Bush wrote:
> > There should be nothing stopping a user from running a mixed arch/~arch
> > system. Those problems just point to our dependency information not
> > being recorded correctly. I
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 20:59:25 +1200
Alistair Bush wrote:
> There should be nothing stopping a user from running a mixed arch/~arch
> system. Those problems just point to our dependency information not being
> recorded correctly. It might be understandable that this info can be
> incredibly
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> I've been operating on the premise that I am the maintainer of the
> package in question and marking it as WONTFIX and making it depend on
> the removal bug while at it. I don't see what's wrong in that..
> If the removal gets reverted, all the depending bugs should be seen
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti:
>> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Yes. When you click the Keywords link it takes you to a description
>>> page: https://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi
>> Sure, I'm aware of that. But where do I hear about the addition of new
>> o
-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 re
-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 mistak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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
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
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 tech
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 you
On Sunday 10 July 2005 17:32, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> I don't see how you could prove that assumption. If you can, please do so.
You see more people ranting that bugs aren't resolved, or more people happy
because their bugs are resolved?
I'm sorry but I can say at least for myself that most of th
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
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 bett
-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 verifie
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.
|
-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 s
-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 prob
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 thou
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 something that affects
almost everyone, to something that affects only some '
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
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
> a) what would be the point of the reporter also being the verifier as
> far as confirming that the bug is real and not a PEBKAC error?
Sometimes devs do clever things to their systems that end-users aren't
aware of, or they test the fi
-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 offe
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
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
--
Henr
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
dev
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 people other than
the reporter reopen a resolved bug report? I'm thinking that there are
cas
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
living. I know this fact: Sometimes the developer doesn't realise what
the actual problem is. Sometimes its because the end-user didn't
communicate well. Sometimes its because the developer is being an ass
(we've all been guilty of this). *That* is why verification should b
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 pi
-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* det
-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
-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
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 was
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
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 *that* is a reasonable argum
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Also, in the case were the 'fix' doesn't actually fix the bug, you waste
> alot more development time by letting it slip through and having to
> 'fix' it again later. So you can justify the time cost now, with time
> saved later.
Just think of it as branch prediction.
If t
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
| plat
-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
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
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Clearly, you either chose to blatantly ignore, or completely
> misunderstood what avenj was saying. What he *meant* was we don't have
> the time or manpower to have developers take significant portions of
> their valuable ti
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 starin
-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 th
-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 th
-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.
-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)
On Saturday 09 July 2005 16:54, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> 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 f
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' l
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -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
>
-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
> ma
-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,
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 23:46 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 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
> >>>actua
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have sat here and read you all rant on and on about these
issues, but you still are not taking into account that when a bug is
marked worksforme or needmoreinfo that we are unable to replicate the
error. We are not saying that the bug does not ex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 Jeffrey;
>>>t
> > 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
Nathan L. Adams posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Fri, 08 Jul 2005 07:42:23 -0400:
> Duncan wrote:
>>
>> Well, not blocker , 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 th
54 matches
Mail list logo
