[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-java/jackson-mapper

[James Le Cuirot]

# James Le Cuirot  (6 Mar 2015)
# A Jackon library that was part of v1 but not v2. Nothing in the tree
# has ever required v1. Removal in 30 days.
dev-java/jackson-mapper

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer


pgpfkAnoiHJi9.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Sven Vermeulen  wrote:
>
> It doesn't hurt to have a recommendation, and personally I really appreciate
> when people (yes, that includes developers and wranglers ;-) update the line
> to be more informative. There already is a recommendation on the wiki, part
> of the Bug Wranglers project [1].
>

Sure, beautiful bug reports are nice, but if people are suffering
burnout over editing the line it this doesn't seem like the biggest
value-add to me.

By all means have a standard.  But, don't discourage but reporters by
asking them to rework reports if they don't conform, and don't
discourage maintainers or bug wranglers by yelling at them if they
don't clean these up.  People can of course can still make things as
pretty as they want to.

The only reason I could see for rigid adherence to a standard is if
we're using the field as input to some kind of program, and if we're
doing that then the data should really be broken down into appropriate
fields like atom, desc, etc.

So, have a best practice, but let's not get carried away with this
sort of thing to the point where people feel like it is getting in the
way.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Sven Vermeulen]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:55:13AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Out of curiousity, what makes the changes necessary in the first
> place?  It seems like an incredible amount of effort is going into
> standardizing the format of textual summary lines and perhaps the
> simplest solution is to just not standardize them at all.

It doesn't hurt to have a recommendation, and personally I really appreciate
when people (yes, that includes developers and wranglers ;-) update the line
to be more informative. There already is a recommendation on the wiki, part
of the Bug Wranglers project [1].

[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Bug-wranglers

The difference between the segregation character (be it ': ', ' - ', ' : '
or what not) is for me less of a concern than the fact that it starts with
the category/package name+version (and with "<" in front if it has been
fixed with that version or higher). That is a real plus as I can easily see
how many fixes are in to a package, which ones to mark as FIXED when
stabilizing (I tend to use TEST-REQUEST as long as the package is still in
~arch), etc.

There are other resources on the wiki as well which might best be aligned
with whatever recommendation is used. See "Beautiful bug reports" [2] and
"Bugzilla HOWTO" [3] as examples.

[2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Beautiful_bug_reports
[3] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Bugzilla_HOWTO

Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
 wrote:
>
> What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid unnecessary
> changes on bugzilla.

Out of curiousity, what makes the changes necessary in the first
place?  It seems like an incredible amount of effort is going into
standardizing the format of textual summary lines and perhaps the
simplest solution is to just not standardize them at all.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:

> I'm trying to find the best fix for
> 

> Currently file-stabilization-bugs.py uses the '%s: stabilization
> request' % cpv format.

The Emacs team used to have a stabilisation template with summary
"Please stabilise %s" for many years. After discussing with jer some
time ago, we changed it to "%s stable request" (i.e. with the package
atom first).

> Here are some options I see:

> a) keep '%s:' as is
> b) change to just '%s'
> c) change to '=%s:'
> d) change to '=%s'
> e) something else

> What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid
> unnecessary changes on bugzilla.

I'd prefer a) or b). The equals sign is redundant if it's about a
single package atom only.

And if it's going to be a) then there should be a space after the
colon, but none before.

Ulrich


pgpc_keF_nmjo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:20:23 -0500
Michael Orlitzky  wrote:

> So jer format is something like "%s - foo".

Yes. I now have a format named after me.

> I guess I subconsciously reverted to using a colon because that's what
> makes the most sense to me. But there is a little ambiguity with slots
> in the package atom.

That should be fine. To me it's all about increased legibility through
the use of _whitespace_, not the actual delimiter. Put there whatever
you want.

> Maybe we should ask the bug wranglers team to come up with some
> guidelines and stick them on the project page? Then we can do whatever
> they prefer.

What I haven't seen at all in the past six years is people doing what
b-w prefers. Which is why I'm currently "on leave" with regard to the
daily 5 hour job of bug wrangling. I simply burned out some two weeks
ago and I'm gradually picking up much more interesting tasks rather
than going back to the grind.

One of the major problems is that there is no format we agree on, which
gives plenty of bad examples in the tracker that are validated over and
over for users (broadly speaking, bugzilla users) picking their own
format based on whatever they can come up with. Every attempt to push a
standard has beached on bikeshedding about the format so far.


 jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:01:23 +0100
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr."  wrote:

> I'm trying to find the best fix for
> 
> 
> Currently file-stabilization-bugs.py uses the '%s: stabilization
> request' % cpv format.
> 
> Here are some options I see:
> 
> a) keep '%s:' as is
> b) change to just '%s'
> c) change to '=%s:'
> d) change to '=%s'
> e) something else
> 
> What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid
> unnecessary changes on bugzilla.

Put a space before the colon (or any delimiter you happen to prefer).
Both cpv:XYZ and cpv::ABC have a special meaning. If nothing else it
improves legibility through the simple application of whitespace.

As for the equal sign, portage should really simply support leaving it
out and interpret '=' as the default. Functionally there should be no
difference between '=a/b-c' and 'a/b-c' anyway, and yet it trips up
emerge.


 jer