[gentoo-dev] Closing bugs
Hi all, is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too. virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=amd64 you mix stable unstable - your problem Cheers Justin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs
On 9/11/10 11:51 AM, justin wrote: is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too. virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=amd64 you mix stable unstable - your problem I think that closing as INVALID is fine in that case, but would say please do not mix stable and unstable instead of your problem. We should be polite when handling bugs. Paweł signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs
On 09/11/2010 09:51 PM, justin wrote: Hi all, is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too. virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=amd64 you mix stable unstable - your problem Only if the problem will not eventually manifest itself with a pure ~arch or arch setup. Even then if it's easy to fix I would myself fix it although we don't officially support it. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs
On Saturday 11 of September 2010 20:51:56 justin wrote: Hi all, is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too. virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=amd64 you mix stable unstable - your problem This is common misconception. Let me quote myself from on of Diego's blogs, accusing me of not giving a crap about quality wrt FEATURES=test. Some people say that mixing testing and stable subtrees is ‘broken’ and not supported. It is because they apparently have no idea how package stabilization process works. ‘tinderbox’ idea of full ~arch integration tests is broken by design! Why? Gentoo is distribution with rolling updates and packages being stabilized are hand picked from ~arch and integrated within existing stable environment (along with possible dependencies). Now the question arises – since Gentoo stable is our ultimate target release (and not ~arch) - what is the point in testing how these packages interact with full testing ~arch? The answer is NONE! If any, following tests should be run: - regression tests – ONLY within full stable arch, typical tinderbox of just chroot would fit there well, it could prevent issues like Gentoo LiveCD autobuilds failing since 8 April… - integration tests – in similar way stabilization process is performed: stable system as a base, picking packages or package sets for tests along with their possible dependencies (best version visible, if not visible within stable arch, then best visible within testing arch or some other algorithm, usually just relying on ebuild dependencies) and testing whether it works so that stabilization process is a formality. Running ~arch as 'test' platform is in many cases counter productive. -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs
On Saturday, September 11, 2010 15:04:45 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:51:56 +0200 justin wrote: is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too. virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=amd64 you mix stable unstable - your problem Would the problem also occur if the user used unstable, but hadn't gotten around to updating every single package on their system all in one go? no -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages
Hey all, just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get closed WONTFIX or INVALID, the removal is reversed for whatever reason, and the bugs fall through the cracks. Once the package is actually deleted, the person removing it should go through bugzie and close any open bugs. Thanks. -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages
Ryan Hill kirjoitti: Hey all, just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get closed WONTFIX or INVALID, the removal is reversed for whatever reason, and the bugs fall through the cracks. Once the package is actually deleted, the person removing it should go through bugzie and close any open bugs. Thanks. Yeh the PMASKED KEYWORD is for packages waiting removal. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:28:44 +0300 Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeh the PMASKED KEYWORD is for packages waiting removal. Is there some place people are supposed to find out about this stuff? I've seen two random Bugzilla keywords mentioned in here in the past week or so as if they were common knowledge, and I've never heard of them before. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages
Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:28:44 +0300 Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeh the PMASKED KEYWORD is for packages waiting removal. Is there some place people are supposed to find out about this stuff? I've seen two random Bugzilla keywords mentioned in here in the past week or so as if they were common knowledge, and I've never heard of them before. Thanks, Donnie Yes. When you click the Keywords link it takes you to a description page: https://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:02:28 +0300 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 ones? Am I supposed to randomly check the descriptions to see whether they've shown up? Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages
Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:02:28 +0300 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 ones? Am I supposed to randomly check the descriptions to see whether they've shown up? Thanks, Donnie Well ideally they would be discussed on gentoo-dev before addition and that was done in the case of STABLEREQ KEYWORDREQ for example. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages
On P, 2007-07-01 at 12:22 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: Hey all, just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get closed WONTFIX or INVALID, the removal is reversed for whatever reason, and the bugs fall through the cracks. Once the package is actually deleted, the person removing it should go through bugzie and close any open bugs. 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 and acted upon. Why should we keep bugs open in our maintainer bugs list if we are 99% sure the package will get removed? We aren't treecleaners project, but the maintainers of the packages whose bug we are marking WONTFIX with the almost certain assumption the package will get removed soon... -- With Regards, Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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 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. If a bug is opened and it is a valid bug, the bug should not be closed until it is actually squashed and the product ships (of course, if its a valid bug that just won't get fixed for some reason, you can always mark it WONTFIX): http://bugs.gentoo.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status I won't even go into the fact that the VERIFIED state* does not seemed to be used or the fact that the person ASSIGNED to the bug is allowed to close [his|her] own bugs! ;) Nathan * This would seem to be a perfect job for Team Leads, but it would need to be enforced by Bugzilla, and the ASSIGNED engineer must not be the same person as the VERIFIED(er) engineer for a particular bug. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCzmaf2QTTR4CNEQARArnwAKCSvsTZJuOGEswyResK3mNoTWlmFgCfbp2s T0h/txCaKzqjGrCdbW1pOqg= =U+ib -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
