Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 19:42 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: [snip] What I see with Gentoo is this 'cathedral' being built where only those folks who have been 'approved' or 'blessed' as being l33t enough are allowed to review the code and actually cause a positive change when some bug is found. So you want to give every user who asks for it full CVS access? Uhm ... If you believe Chris Gianelloni's argument, then only those blessed developers who are also blessed by a particular group within Gentoo are allowed. Eventually the meritocracy degrades into a popularity contest. Nonsense. Every person that shows dedication and some basic skills can become developer If you want to argue for the fun of it, go debian yourself ;-) What I want is for Gentoo to be more of a 'bazaar' where anyone with a good idea gets listened to and anyone with a good patch gets their name in the credits Isn't that already what is done? Every good patch/bugfix will be assimilated if it does something useful in an understandable way ... Yes this is a volanteer distribution. That's a blessing, not a curse! That means that you DON'T HAVE DEADLINES. You can take the time to do it right instead of just 'code it up, test it once, and pray it really works'. Yes, so please shut up and let us do our thing ;-) wkr, Patrick -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nathan L. Adams wrote: | What I see with Gentoo is this 'cathedral' being built where only those | folks who have been 'approved' or 'blessed' as being l33t enough are | allowed to review the code and actually cause a positive change when | some bug is found. If you believe Chris Gianelloni's argument, then only | those blessed developers who are also blessed by a particular group | within Gentoo are allowed. Eventually the meritocracy degrades into a | popularity contest. Our code is all available in the portage tree or ViewCVS, and so are all the ebuild bugs in Bugzilla. Nobody's stopping anybody else from reviewing any submissions or filing new bugs. It's just a question of who makes (and therefore approves of) the actual commit. I don't see where your cathedral is coming from. Thanks, Donnie -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDCFE8XVaO67S1rtsRAus4AJ9KFE6sGcSR+zOcWHMcvSSi3y6nPwCbB6ZG J3Tkx0jpntLr+B7fPy5RQfw= =mLzH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
This time I'll say something useful :) Nathan, you seem to be misunderstanding open source. You get the I can ask for features or suggest things part, but not that I can add features or do things part. No one is stopping you, or me, or an average joe, or George W. Bush, from peer reviewing. You can see the basic things that are commonly wrong by looking at a few resolvedwontfix bugs with ciaranm as the commenter. Most make the same mistakes. After seeing this, what is to stop you from either manually looking through the tree, or writing a script to check for you, and fixing some of the problems, submitting them as bugs when they are fixed. I cannot imagine any developer would say no to a well written ebuild, they may wait for a version bump to switch to it, but they most likely would not ignore it all together. Hell, maybe if you do a good enough job, and show enough devotion, the gentoo guru's will even think about making you a developer in charge of fixing those things. who knows? On 8/21/05, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Donnie Berkholz posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:02:36 -0700: Nathan L. Adams wrote: | What I see with Gentoo is this 'cathedral' being built where only those | folks who have been 'approved' or 'blessed' as being l33t enough are | allowed to review the code and actually cause a positive change when | some bug is found. If you believe Chris Gianelloni's argument, then only | those blessed developers who are also blessed by a particular group | within Gentoo are allowed. Eventually the meritocracy degrades into a | popularity contest. Our code is all available in the portage tree or ViewCVS, and so are all the ebuild bugs in Bugzilla. Nobody's stopping anybody else from reviewing any submissions or filing new bugs. It's just a question of who makes (and therefore approves of) the actual commit. I don't see where your cathedral is coming from. I'm with Donnie on this. Gentoo's quite the bazaar, IMO. When I read that cathedral thing, my reaction (strong enough to cause a verbal outburst as I read your post), was Oh, brother! You don't have any idea! That as I was physically shaking my head. I don't know where you got the idea that Gentoo's a cathedral at all, as it sure looks to be a bazaar from this viewpoint. You /totally/ lost me with that one. I couldn't disagree more! -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Portnoy wrote: I hate to be the bearer of bad news Somehow, I doubt that... ;) but that's because you don't realize how many devs are sitting back and giggling at this thread 8) I didn't realize you got together with other devs for giggle fests! ;) You've pretty much hijacked this thread to rant and rave about QA; we're already aware of QA problems, And yet I see scarce few ideas on how to solve the problem. The only other person who seems to have any are Ciaran, and what is his solution? He's doing *code reviews* of ebuilds. *GASP* Imagine that! the reason nobody is listening to you in this thread is not that nobody cares, it's that your ideas (well.. I guess I've mostly only seen one..) have not been practical or useful for reasons already explained. The only reason I've seen, besides I don't wanna and how dare you question my l33t code skills, is the manpower/time issue. But my work experience tells me that the sooner you find a bug, the easier/faster it is to squash. So although my little idea *will* take time up front, it has the /potential/ to save much more time later on. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDCIAX2QTTR4CNEQARAuOlAKCH97nGjDuI4VJnhIqNqeqARK9P5gCbBi5w nsTXa8Du1uQvqnlQhqTUBNo= =GZAK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 09:22 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: And yet I see scarce few ideas on how to solve the problem. The only other person who seems to have any are Ciaran, and what is his solution? He's doing *code reviews* of ebuilds. *GASP* Imagine that! And - as I told you the last time you brought this issue up - you're more than welcome to start reviewing ebuilds and commits as well. We have a bugzilla which is open to the public, we have an irc channel [1] (which is even monitored by CIA [2]) for tracking all commits made to the portage tree... what more do you want? If you so desperately want code review in Gentoo, why don't you do what every other open source software developer has to do to get his ideas through: put some work into it yourself? I've been wondering: do your emails on this list represent the view of the IEEE organization? Sincerely, Brix [1]: irc://irc.freenode.net/gentoo-commits [2]: http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/gentoo -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dan Meltzer wrote: This time I'll say something useful :) Nathan, you seem to be misunderstanding open source. You get the I can ask for features or suggest things part, but not that I can add features or do things part. No one is stopping you, or me, or an average joe, or George W. Bush, from peer reviewing. You can see the basic things that are commonly wrong by looking at a few resolvedwontfix bugs with ciaranm as the commenter. Most make the same mistakes. After seeing this, what is to stop you from either manually looking through the tree, or writing a script to check for you, and fixing some of the problems, submitting them as bugs when they are fixed. No, I understand what you're saying completely. I've been using F/OSS for about 10 years now, and I've been an engineer/programmer for about 5 of those. So I know a little bit about both sides of the story. And I've actually submitted an ebuild for thunderbird (although it was really just an integration job of a couple of existing versions), so I'm certainly not unwilling to get my hands dirty. I cannot imagine any developer would say no to a well written ebuild, they may wait for a version bump to switch to it, but they most likely would not ignore it all together. Hell, maybe if you do a good enough job, and show enough devotion, the gentoo guru's will even think about making you a developer in charge of fixing those things. who knows? My experience with Gentoo is that certain developers ignore user submitted ebuilds, bugs fixes, etc. and claim its a manpower/time issue. Yet they fail to court the user submitting the ebuild into becoming a developer too (thus helping relieve the manpower/time issue). And this isn't me wanting to get noticed, mind you; I'm talking about other users who regularly submit ebuilds and get ignored. So you end up with the in crowd capable of making Gentoo better and the rest forced to either fork or just go away. Chris even told Ciaran to not look at a user submitted ebuild because it was the games group's territory. Yet the games group 'FAQ' complains about how little time all of those dev's have. Wouldn't it make more sense to recruit those folks and make your team more capable of handling the load? THERE is your cathedral. And again, thats just one example and not indicative of the entire Gentoo dev team (or the entire games team for that matter). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDCIW92QTTR4CNEQARAvPuAJwPipryDRbAo/j7IrZCfavIbUP8HQCgglUt j51c5mPa0SyDZezeGg+FJJ0= =rHOS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: And - as I told you the last time you brought this issue up - you're more than welcome to start reviewing ebuilds and commits as well. I'm starting to do just that. I've even asked Ciaran to review a particular ebuild I was interested in so that I could learn from it. We have a bugzilla which is open to the public, we have an irc channel [1] (which is even monitored by CIA [2]) for tracking all commits made to the portage tree... what more do you want? That is handy, thanks. I don't see the IRC channel listed here: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/irc.xml So I've emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] and asked to have it added. :) If you so desperately want code review in Gentoo, why don't you do what every other open source software developer has to do to get his ideas through: put some work into it yourself? See above. I've been wondering: do your emails on this list represent the view of the IEEE organization? Of course not. But the IEEE *is* all about peer review (as all scientists have been for the last few hundred years). And here is a nice high-level article about the benefits of peer review while developing software for the non-believers :) http://www.visibleprogress.com/peer_reviews.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDCItE2QTTR4CNEQARAtWfAJoDGYt/o6afKSL/7VCxFuAJNYZfHQCgp9N0 K9f5keHUSdyd5nat4rit6EM= =kXk/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 10:10 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: I'm starting to do just that. I've even asked Ciaran to review a particular ebuild I was interested in so that I could learn from it. That's still not *you* doing the actual work - that's you requesting someone else to review your work - which is good, but a totally different topic which doesn't really belong in this thread, imho. That is handy, thanks. I don't see the IRC channel listed here: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/irc.xml So I've emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] and asked to have it added. :) Ok. If you so desperately want code review in Gentoo, why don't you do what every other open source software developer has to do to get his ideas through: put some work into it yourself? See above. See above what? The part about you requesting someone to review your ebuild? Of course not. But the IEEE *is* all about peer review (as all scientists have been for the last few hundred years). And here is a nice high-level article about the benefits of peer review while developing software for the non-believers :) I'm confident that most Gentoo developers agree that peer review is a nice concept - but... I think you need to sit down and participate in an open source project to fully understand how it works. You can't just step forward and say this is good, you need to do this as a bystander - that's not how the open source spirit works. If you on the other hand step forward and say something like I've spent the last x months reviewing your code and developed a small set of utilities for doing so, would you be interested in a wider use of these? I think you'd get a much better welcome. In the open source community this is also known as show me the code as in: if you want something done, you'd better be ready to back it up with code and/or actions. Basically, you'll need to put more than words into this, if you want to see it happen. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 11:14 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: Its a chicken and egg situation. I need to have a certain level of expertise with ebuild syntax and conventions to do the job. So I've asked for some help from an expert. Also, I learn things quicker and easier by first seeing examples and then seeing the documentation; that's just me. Once I've learned a bit, I can start doing things on my own. We have plenty of examples in portage - and you can always ask on irc or on this mailing list if you have a specific question related to ebuild best practices. Did you read our Ebuild HOWTO [1] yet? By the way, I didn't create the ebuild. Peer review isn't when you review your own work. Its when somebody else, knowlegdable in the subject, reviews your work. Yes, I am aware of the concept. *THAT* is a great idea. I am proficient in several scripting languages. I am willing to write the tools if someone more knowledgable is willing to help me with what the 'best practices' are for ebuilds. Its a 'you help me and we'll both help Gentoo' situation. Good luck with that. I look forward to hearing from you when you've established a project base and started reviewing our current ebuilds. Wikipedia has an article on code review [2] which has a few useful links at the bottom - perhaps these can help you get started. Sincerely, Brix [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_review -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:20:00 +0200 Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | We have plenty of examples in portage ...some of which are good and some of which are terrible. | Did you read our Ebuild HOWTO [1] yet? That's, uh, not really the best documentation around... The devmanual's a slightly better bet if one wishes to learn how things should really be done. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpD1k14oQDKG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Nathan L. Adams wrote: Its a chicken and egg situation. I need to have a certain level of expertise with ebuild syntax and conventions to do the job. So I've asked for some help from an expert. Also, I learn things quicker and easier by first seeing examples and then seeing the documentation; that's just me. Once I've learned a bit, I can start doing things on my own. By the way, I didn't create the ebuild. Peer review isn't when you review your own work. Its when somebody else, knowlegdable in the subject, reviews your work. examples available in the portage tree... Documentation with examples and more http://dev.gentoo.org/~plasmaroo/devmanual/ *THAT* is a great idea. I am proficient in several scripting languages. I am willing to write the tools if someone more knowledgable is willing to help me with what the 'best practices' are for ebuilds. Its a 'you help me and we'll both help Gentoo' situation. See above, you can just pass on IRC to contact us directly btw. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I've been going through the EBUILD list at random and providing lists of things that need to be fixed before the ebuild can be considered for inclusion. The WONTFIX resolution along with a comment asking for the submitter to reopen with a fixed ebuild is used when problems are found. Is it possible to leave these bugs in an open state? WONTFIX doesn't seem the right tool for the job: WONTFIX The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. Often i believe the ebuild submitter is a different party than the one who originally opened the bug. Also, an individual who fixes up an ebuild to comply with the review could again be a completely different person. Neither of these people can reopen the bug. My concern is that you lose the ability to differentiate between bugs that have been reviewed and don't yet have an updated ebuild and those which do when doing a bugzilla query. My other concern is that closed bugs are not searched by default when doing a simple query (like that on the submit bug wizard) which makes them easy for users to overlook and leads to duplicates. Can I suggest REVIEW+ and REVIEW- keywords? :) When an updated ebuild is submitted, the submitter could simply remove the REVIEW- keyword to get the bug back in the to-be-reviewed queue. I think this is a great idea btw. Thanks for taking it up. --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:06:34 -0600 R Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | I've been going through the EBUILD list at random and providing | lists of things that need to be fixed before the ebuild can be | considered for inclusion. The WONTFIX resolution along with a | comment asking for the submitter to reopen with a fixed ebuild is | used when problems are found. | | Is it possible to leave these bugs in an open state? I'd rather not... There're 600+ items on the list, it's too hard to maintain. | WONTFIX doesn't seem the right tool for the job: | |WONTFIX | The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. And the ebuild attached will never be 'fixed' in the state it is in. | Often i believe the ebuild submitter is a different party than the | one who originally opened the bug. Also, an individual who fixes up | an ebuild to comply with the review could again be a completely | different person. Neither of these people can reopen the bug. Yeah, the lack of reopening powers is a problem. I'd rather this was solved by a) letting any authenticated user reopen any bug and, if necessary, b) allowing developers to lock bugs. | Can I suggest REVIEW+ and REVIEW- keywords? :) When an updated | ebuild is submitted, the submitter could simply remove the REVIEW- | keyword to get the bug back in the to-be-reviewed queue. Changing keywords correctly seems to be rather a lot to ask from people who can't even manage to mark ebuilds as text/plain... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpTedNpa6pqY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:06:34 -0600 R Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote: | | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | | I've been going through the EBUILD list at random and providing | | lists of things that need to be fixed before the ebuild can be | | considered for inclusion. The WONTFIX resolution along with a | | comment asking for the submitter to reopen with a fixed ebuild is | | used when problems are found. | | | | Is it possible to leave these bugs in an open state? | | I'd rather not... There're 600+ items on the list, it's too hard to | maintain. | | | WONTFIX doesn't seem the right tool for the job: | | | |WONTFIX | | The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. | | And the ebuild attached will never be 'fixed' in the state it is in. I might use NEEDINFO instead, but it all depends on the people looking at the bug. Donnie -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDB6uXXVaO67S1rtsRAgn+AJ4hUEjFYFQyXiKhmRwlKPM9o5sAJACfbiZd LLickXtb907fd+ZIAKyTcqE= =9HEk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Yeah, the lack of reopening powers is a problem. I'd rather this was solved by a) letting any authenticated user reopen any bug and, if necessary, b) allowing developers to lock bugs. Agreed. I've requested this before but haven't had any response. --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:00:02PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: WONTFIX refers to the bug, not the attached ebuild. And it won't be 'fixed' unless the ebuild is improved, so WONTFIX is fine. Cheers, Ferdy -- \\|// . . . o o o o O O ( Born to be ) o o ( FREE ) +--ooO--O--Ooo---+ | Fernando José Pereda Garcimartín - http://www.ferdyx.org | | Gentoo Linux Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferdy | | [ ferdy AT ferdyx DOT org ] [ ferdy AT gentoo DOT org ] | | 20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 | ++ pgpuB2Cq7h8LV.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Nathan L. Adams posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:31:30 -0400: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | No, I'm saying that having a 'team lead' throw some arbitrary stamp | of approval upon bug closures is worthless. | | So you're problem isn't with the peer review I'm proposing but instead | quality of work of the team leads? Not at all. I'm saying that a) most 'team leads' will not do proper checks because they don't have time to and b) the limited time that 'team leads' have is better spent elsewhere. I really am curious here: a) What are the team leads spending most of their time on? b) What is more important than improving the code? Not to sound harsh, but... I think what many users lose sight of is the fact that 100% of the Gentoo developer team, INCLUDING the team leads, are unpaid volunteers. What most of the team leads, and what everyone else involved, spend most of their time on, therefore, is *REAL* *LIFE*! A wife, a husband, kids, THOSE are more important (or /should/ be) than improving the code. A job, good grades at the uni, THOSE are more important than improving the code. Are you a Mark Shuttleworth? Do you have a few million dollars sitting around to fund your little distribution? If so, go to it, but it's not going to be Gentoo, because Gentoo is a community distribution. Part of what makes it what it is, is the volunteer efforts of all that pitch in. If you changed that by sponsoring it, paying for development, it would cease to be the Gentoo most of us know and love. (Look up the Zynot fork for more on that.) If you don't have that few million, then perhaps a bit more understanding of the nature of volunteer efforts is in order. This is /not/ to say there isn't room in the open source community for the Ubuntus of the world, because obviously there is. However, Ubuntu is /not/ Gentoo; Gentoo is /not/ Ubuntu. Again, that's been tried before. Go take a look at Zynot. So... we are left with a situation in which every contributor is a volunteer, taking a bit of time here, a bit of time there, to pitch in and make their little corner of Gentoo better. One characteristic of working with volunteers is that the volunteers get to decide what they spend time on. Most of the developers, it would seem, choose to spend their time directly involved with the code, developing and doing primary testing, sure, but the QA testing is left to the ~arch users such as myself, and to the bug system, depending on users to file bugs, then check them and reopen them if necessary. Even if we were to find a number of volunteers that wanted to spend all or most of their Gentoo time on QA peer reviewing the work of others, who's to say the ones actually doing the work would find that situation satisfactory? Keep in mind, once again, that it's volunteers doing the work. They only do it as long as it remains satisfying for them to continue doing it. Fortunately or unfortunately, the types of people that would find constantly peer reviewing the work of others satisfying enough to continue to do it on a volunteer basis, are not generally the types of people that the volunteers actually doing the coding are likely to find it pleasant enough working with to continue to volunteer their own time. Pretty quickly, it would seem too much like a job -- one they aren't getting paid to do -- and too little like the sort of fun that continues to draw them into volunteering. Very likely, it wouldn't be long until it'd all be peer reviewers, with nothing to do, because all the folks doing the work to be peer reviewed had gotten tired of it, and found other more important things to do with their time! That would appear to me to be the dynamic that's the problem with your solution, in addition to the fact that Gentoo is constantly understaffed, that is, there is always more work to be done than there are folks with time to do it. That of course, pretty much by definition, is the nature of a volunteer project. The closer it gets to stasis, the closer it gets to having enough man-hours to match the work available, the less important what is left becomes, so the more likely it becomes for those that /would/ volunteer, to again, find other more important things to do with their time. For that reason alone, in addition to the one above, it's relatively unlikely such a QA/peer review system will ever be set up. Why? Because by definition, that's less important than actually having the code there to use or peer review in the first place, and by the time there are enough folks actually doing the coding to make that less urgent than the peer review process, we are down the relative importance levels far enough that other things will by definition be more important than that last little bit of coding OR the peer review stuff, so it'll never get done. My personal view,
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:00:02PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: WONTFIX refers to the bug, not the attached ebuild. And it won't be 'fixed' unless the ebuild is improved, so WONTFIX is fine. As R Hill already pointed out, WONTFIX means that the *bug* will never be fixed. Fixing the *ebuild* would fix the bug, so WONTFIX isn't the right keyword. Following your logic, all bugs dealing with ebuild should be marked WONTFIX; in the ebuild's current state the bug wont be fixed. Its just not a logical argument. What Ciaran is actually doing is assigning the bug back to the person that submitted the ebuild. So ASSIGNED or something new like CONTRIB_ASSIGNED would be appropriate. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDB7tr2QTTR4CNEQARAnK8AJkB4ThPI0YmG3HUU15hvXuVmAC+bwCfT77o tNRu+Ol64fpUMoA1o33YZ7A= =Q0JO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:23:23 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | As R Hill already pointed out, WONTFIX means that the *bug* will never | be fixed. Fixing the *ebuild* would fix the bug, so WONTFIX isn't the | right keyword. Following your logic, all bugs dealing with ebuild | should be marked WONTFIX; in the ebuild's current state the bug wont | be fixed. Its just not a logical argument. | | What Ciaran is actually doing is assigning the bug back to the person | that submitted the ebuild. So ASSIGNED or something new like | CONTRIB_ASSIGNED would be appropriate. *shrug* If you can persuade Jeff to deal with the pain of adding another bugzilla resolution (which is nowhere near as easy as adding keywords) I'll use it. But really, WONTFIX is just fine. As the bug stands, it won't be fixed. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpAF73YLXZrd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Nathan L. Adams wrote: As R Hill already pointed out, WONTFIX means that the *bug* will never be fixed. Fixing the *ebuild* would fix the bug, so WONTFIX isn't the right keyword. Following your logic, all bugs dealing with ebuild should be marked WONTFIX; in the ebuild's current state the bug wont be fixed. Its just not a logical argument. Given every dev is complaining about how long is getting this thread and how pointless is. PLEASE AVOID REFRAINING SUCH NONSENSE point taken, working on it, don't impair our productivity more than that. thank you lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: Not to sound harsh, but... [snip the we're just volanteers argument] All F/OSS projects (even Linux with its numerous corporate sponsors) are, at their core, volanteer projects. Yet the good ones still manage to build peer review into their development process. What I see with Gentoo is this 'cathedral' being built where only those folks who have been 'approved' or 'blessed' as being l33t enough are allowed to review the code and actually cause a positive change when some bug is found. If you believe Chris Gianelloni's argument, then only those blessed developers who are also blessed by a particular group within Gentoo are allowed. Eventually the meritocracy degrades into a popularity contest. What I want is for Gentoo to be more of a 'bazaar' where anyone with a good idea gets listened to and anyone with a good patch gets their name in the credits. Yes this is a volanteer distribution. That's a blessing, not a curse! That means that you DON'T HAVE DEADLINES. You can take the time to do it right instead of just 'code it up, test it once, and pray it really works'. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDB7/I2QTTR4CNEQARAirCAJ9V+MDjb4gAhWInpaodKeRVp6uNhQCeLfqh K4D6MJE2g0m7F4ALEoa2siY= =Nt9Z -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Nathan L. Adams wrote: [lenghty email snipped] Since a ml isn't a place for interactive discussion, could you please user our irc channel or jabber im? Thank you lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:44:56PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luca Barbato wrote: Nathan L. Adams wrote: Given every dev is complaining about how long is getting this thread and how pointless is. PLEASE AVOID REFRAINING SUCH NONSENSE point taken, working on it, don't impair our productivity more than that. thank you The only devs I've seen complain are yourself and Jon Portnoy. Nobody is forcing you to read the thread... I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that's because you don't realize how many devs are sitting back and giggling at this thread 8) You've pretty much hijacked this thread to rant and rave about QA; we're already aware of QA problems, the reason nobody is listening to you in this thread is not that nobody cares, it's that your ideas (well.. I guess I've mostly only seen one..) have not been practical or useful for reasons already explained. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Friday 19 August 2005 11:59 am, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: What I'd like is a new keyword (bugzilla, not ebuild) for indicating that a developer has done a check on an ebuild and is satisfied that the ebuild is fine from a style perspective. Isn't the use of flags like Mozilla does[1], what you want? [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=231620 maybe, but it looks like we'd have to upgrade our bugzilla to get that feature ... considering how our last upgrades are gone, i dont mind staying with our current version :P -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
