On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:40:42 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Okay, so what are you using the STABLEREQ keyword for that you want
to set it when the bug is filed but before archs are added? If you
want to see only stabilization bugs you can search in the Keywording
and
On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:40:42 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Okay, so what are you using the STABLEREQ keyword for that you want
to set it when the bug is filed but before archs are added?
The people that decided to change their way of using this keyword, did
so because setting it
On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:20:00 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is a version bump an enhancement per se?
Yes. Nothing is broken. There is no bug to fix.
No. Things can be broken. There are almost always bugs to fix.
New versions come with bug fixes too, users need these fixes.
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
not to change the priority and severity
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
(What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
Why are they enhancements?
On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am
On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
(What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
Why are they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 06:07 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 07:16 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation no
answer to stable bug in 30 days = package unmantained ;-)
This could actually work
Then we'd get the Ubuntu/Launchpad situation, where
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yet the base system lead went and apply it to any stabilization
bug; as both him and Jer (the bug wrangling lead) do it this way,
I'll be doing it as well. Let's not be inconsistent with our leads
unless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 10:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation
no answer to stable bug in 30 days = package unmantained
;-)
On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:46:22 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
As a user, I've understood:
* Severity is something the user/filer can use.
So when Chromium doesn't compile on your machine, you set it as a
Blocker, and then it gets reverted to Normal because it works fine for
the
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
The point I was making is we could improve things by a fair margin. If
all stabilisation bugs had a Severity that actually reflected the
severity, then I'd pay
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
A newer version of a package is usually considered to be better in
some way, hence it is an enhancement.
Unless it's a Blocker, of course. :)
According to the bug-wrangler's own docs[1]: A stabilisation request
18 matches
Mail list logo
