Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 11:31:30AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: > > I really am curious here: > > a) What are the team leads spending most of their time on? Hopefully not reading this thread -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
* Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:55:32 -0700 Donnie Berkholz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > | Hash: SHA1 > | > | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | | Nope, because I'm not marking things as "I will include this". > | > | According to Bugzilla, it means more like: Contains content that > | should be reviewed for integration. Patches, apps/scripts, etc... > | which could be used as content that has been approved and is ready to > | be integrated by a maintainer. > > Indeed. It's not approved or ready to be integrated. About Inclusion keyword, seems the comfusion is back can someone else comment on this bug too http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99572 -- Thomas Matthijs (axxo,knu) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 01:13:37PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > Reviewing an ebuild has nothing to do with inclusion. For inclusion in > > the tree, it also needs to be tested. > > You don't take the slightest look at an ebuild (the code) before > including it? Anyhow, whether its testing or code review, it is time > better spent than cooking up conspiracy theories about me vs. the games > team and posting it to the mailing list. Bleh, word play/ isn't needed, as spanky said it's a waste. Inclussion == commit to the tree, available via rsync. Review, and testing are both required. ~harring pgp8UTwCj68nk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Reviewing an ebuild has nothing to do with inclusion. For inclusion in > the tree, it also needs to be tested. You don't take the slightest look at an ebuild (the code) before including it? Anyhow, whether its testing or code review, it is time better spent than cooking up conspiracy theories about me vs. the games team and posting it to the mailing list. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDB2TB2QTTR4CNEQARAo8/AJ9A2lcb/DocUJUJdMrIJEsDBwN0FgCeLAWw qWz0qr+iKO+W9zpoTtULLM8= =Maa/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:56 PM, Nathan L. Adams wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: *sigh* Please stay away from that bug. It is assigned to the games team, as it is a games bug, and it will be gotten to when we have the time and not before. Nathan is once again using a discussion to fuel his own personal desires and attempting to circumvent the games team. We peer review our own ebuilds against each other, so there's no need to have other developers do so, unless you're wanting to join the games team... =] In the time it took you to respond to this thread, you probably could have reviewed the ebuild in question... Reviewing an ebuild has nothing to do with inclusion. For inclusion in the tree, it also needs to be tested. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:31:30 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > 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? Fixing bugs that haven't already been fixed. | b) What is more important than improving the code? Fixing things that are definitely bugs is more important that fixing things that have almost certainly already been fixed. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpzNq0K3yVde.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" > | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > wrote: > | > | > Because that won't help in the slightest. > | > | > | > | So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing > | > | things by default is bad? Explain? > | > > | > 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? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDB0zS2QTTR4CNEQARAjUbAJ92tanYPNEXx6ZHyiZcFDjHpohgHQCePN0t v9BxNT1eetr9uZ8Be5PwEAw= =50IR -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > wrote: | > | > Because that won't help in the slightest. | > | | > | So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing | > | things by default is bad? Explain? | > | > 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. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpqQvx8TfOak.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 19 August 2005 08:56 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote: > >>In the time it took you to respond to this thread, you probably could >>have reviewed the ebuild in question... > > thank you for wasting our time with a pointless e-mail > -mike Thank Chris. I asked Ciaran to review an ebuild I was interested in so that I could learn a little by example of what he thinks coding standards in ebuilds should be. This is the development mailing list, correct? Where development stuff is discuss, correct? Chris responded with (paraphrasing of course) "this my territory, go away", "Nathan is part of a conspiracy against the game team", and "don't critique our stuff, this is our territory". The territorial stuff... stupid but whatever. The attack on me... not acceptable behaviour. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBzpN2QTTR4CNEQARAhA9AJ4uIZAS9l/9kYK7tcaU60QRsd5DCACfV+Ef FKb5jFgXTo7Xps8gtEp1vqM= =Ybo/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | > Because that won't help in the slightest. > | > | So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing things > | by default is bad? Explain? > > 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? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBzgm2QTTR4CNEQARAvaCAJwJO5BrCK+yG57+yxa4TI2gN9zT6ACdEjPP 7S5TQ9d236Oo1Lkln/9QziY= =39QI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Friday 19 August 2005 08:56 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote: > In the time it took you to respond to this thread, you probably could > have reviewed the ebuild in question... thank you for wasting our time with a pointless e-mail -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Because that won't help in the slightest. | | So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing things | by default is bad? Explain? No, I'm saying that having a 'team lead' throw some arbitrary stamp of approval upon bug closures is worthless. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpGDdo5cpSfh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > *sigh* > > Please stay away from that bug. It is assigned to the games team, as it > is a games bug, and it will be gotten to when we have the time and not > before. Nathan is once again using a discussion to fuel his own > personal desires and attempting to circumvent the games team. We peer > review our own ebuilds against each other, so there's no need to have > other developers do so, unless you're wanting to join the games team... > =] > In the time it took you to respond to this thread, you probably could have reviewed the ebuild in question... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBn/X2QTTR4CNEQARAvLkAJwP4N13cBN3yFxH5a63+SjRzKV6kACggZcw QrXnvX/Cq6vb8C5eKNtyqzs= =Hv1N -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:36:43 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number of devs > | with commit access is just bound to increase. So why not focus on how > | to increase quality by default? > > I am doing. I'm doing it by trying to improve the documentation and the > entry requirements for new developers. > > | > Problem is, getting decent > | > QA done once things hit the tree is in many cases very difficult > | > | So why not build peer review into the process/policy? Require that the > | team leads (who could deligate as they see fit) perform verification > | (peer review) before closing out bugs. > > Because that won't help in the slightest. > So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing things by default is bad? Explain? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBn8e2QTTR4CNEQARAqaHAJ9erzzbR6qac8px3g+Ii4mI2nuBmQCeKW78 uVVAdNgFYoXpTaI7z5FxDsg= =iZAz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:55:32 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- | Hash: SHA1 | | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | | Nope, because I'm not marking things as "I will include this". | | According to Bugzilla, it means more like: Contains content that | should be reviewed for integration. Patches, apps/scripts, etc... | which could be used as content that has been approved and is ready to | be integrated by a maintainer. Indeed. It's not approved or ready to be integrated. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpWLnsSFq4x1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Nope, because I'm not marking things as "I will include this". According to Bugzilla, it means more like: Contains content that should be reviewed for integration. Patches, apps/scripts, etc... which could be used as content that has been approved and is ready to be integrated by a maintainer. Thanks, Donnie -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBh0UXVaO67S1rtsRAhbdAKDbUmPYvBu8R8KgwpNiIcWECQefogCg7fjP vX+yPrTNJtd0yHAKmmLrrEU= =zKzF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 06:20:14PM +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote: > For anyone willing to modify it, I've taken it out of bugzilla cvs and > put it in my dev space: > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~griffon26/bzLifecycle.xml > > Just load it in dia and edit away. Oh, btw, this is licensed under the GNU free documentation license. http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.18/html/gfdl.html -- Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kfk4ever.com pgp94qOdmvDU1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:58:00AM +0200, Julien Allanos wrote: > Furthermore, could the bugzilla bug lifecycle > (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.18/html/lifecycle.html) be referenced > in the bugzilla-howto, or even better, updated with Gentoo workflow > characteristics and included? For anyone willing to modify it, I've taken it out of bugzilla cvs and put it in my dev space: http://dev.gentoo.org/~griffon26/bzLifecycle.xml Just load it in dia and edit away. Please let others know in this thread if you're gonna work on it, to prevent duplication of effort. Maurice. -- Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kfk4ever.com pgp9cE7SN9oTW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:20:38 -0400 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 15:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:39:26 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94764 | > | > Will do. There's rather a large list (assigned to maintainer-wanted | > and ebuild in keywords and not verified in keywords gives 600ish), | > but I'll get to it whenever the random number god decrees it :) | | *sigh* | | Please stay away from that bug. It is assigned to the games team, as | it is a games bug, and it will be gotten to when we have the time and | not before. Nathan is once again using a discussion to fuel his own | personal desires and attempting to circumvent the games team. We peer | review our own ebuilds against each other, so there's no need to have | other developers do so, unless you're wanting to join the games | team... =] Ah, sorry, I didn't look at the bug before. I'm only doing things that're assigned to maintainer-wanted. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpFy3DoJhc0x.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 15:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:39:26 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[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. > | > | If you have time, could you please review the ebuild attached to this > | bug: > | > | http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94764 > > Will do. There's rather a large list (assigned to maintainer-wanted and > ebuild in keywords and not verified in keywords gives 600ish), but I'll > get to it whenever the random number god decrees it :) *sigh* Please stay away from that bug. It is assigned to the games team, as it is a games bug, and it will be gotten to when we have the time and not before. Nathan is once again using a discussion to fuel his own personal desires and attempting to circumvent the games team. We peer review our own ebuilds against each other, so there's no need to have other developers do so, unless you're wanting to join the games team... =] -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:39:26 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[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. | | If you have time, could you please review the ebuild attached to this | bug: | | http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94764 Will do. There's rather a large list (assigned to maintainer-wanted and ebuild in keywords and not verified in keywords gives 600ish), but I'll get to it whenever the random number god decrees it :) -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpeY5rpdqCYH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:36:43 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number of devs | with commit access is just bound to increase. So why not focus on how | to increase quality by default? I am doing. I'm doing it by trying to improve the documentation and the entry requirements for new developers. | > Problem is, getting decent | > QA done once things hit the tree is in many cases very difficult | | So why not build peer review into the process/policy? Require that the | team leads (who could deligate as they see fit) perform verification | (peer review) before closing out bugs. Because that won't help in the slightest. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpVep30XWgYE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:13:31 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | | Ok. You have until whenever I next encounter Jeff to come up with a | | better name, or REVIEWED it is. And it seems I was dreaming about | | bugzilla allowing () stuff after keywords entries (maybe I was | | thinking of one of the zillion other bug trackers out there...), so | | there'll be no "who did the review" tag suffix for now. | | It seems to me that using the existing Inclusion keyword could do | fine. Nope, because I'm not marking things as "I will include this". -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpAfsmi6wpJ3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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. If you have time, could you please review the ebuild attached to this bug: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94764 Thanks, Nathan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBe8e2QTTR4CNEQARAv0cAJ9lKCHbPpiHgJO5KfKi8qrlB2gTKACdGVTw NDOmC0UYBLEwF6Zo9U8cLA8= =oP5s -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Oh come on, haven't you heard my rants about the state of the tree and > the number of monkeys who have commit access? Yes I've read those rants, among others.. :) But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number of devs with commit access is just bound to increase. So why not focus on how to increase quality by default? > Problem is, getting decent > QA done once things hit the tree is in many cases very difficult So why not build peer review into the process/policy? Require that the team leads (who could deligate as they see fit) perform verification (peer review) before closing out bugs. > -- the > kind of people who won't accept QA feedback are usually the kind who > are making the worst mistakes. The maintainer-wanted list is simply an > easier target... True; being a premadonna isn't pretty or helpful to the project, but I bet alot of it is due to bad expectations. There seems to be a vocal minority of devs who equate being a dev with a God-like status. "How dare you question me or my work?!?" And it would make sense that the new devs would pick up on that as a way to 'fit in'. So how can we set better expectations for new devs up front? Update the dev policy docs?: - - Expect to have your work peer reviewed at all times - - Realise that peer reviews are intended to improve the code not evaluate dev performance Ideas? Nathan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBe572QTTR4CNEQARAtYpAJ0aZ4gnfyE4lTUrbYr/DcWmIUX67ACghyvl TTCM9mWVTkuUWm33WnSeE9A= =gE1q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Quoting Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Currently, things assigned to maintainer-wanted get the following keywords (bugzilla, not ebuild): * EBUILD if an ebuild is attached * REQUEST if an ebuild is requested Ah. I didn't know this was part of the bugzilla policy. 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. Note that I'm being pretty strict about quoting, style etc, partly because one easy way of improving tree QA is by making sure that new entries are of a high standard and partly because it would be nice for herds to be able to get a perfect, probably no changes needed ebuild. Sure, some of the existing tree is far from ideal, but that's no excuse for adding new shoddy things. 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. This does **not** mean that the developer has tried to actually merge the package. There're all kinds of things for which I can say "the ebuild looks good", but not so many for which I can say "the ebuild looks good and installs something that works", since a lot of them have insanely long dependency lists or specific hardware requirements. Can anyone suggest a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)... Good idea. That means one could distinguish: 1/ Freshly submitted ebuilds that haven't been looked at yet (open bugs, assigned to maintainer-wanted, where keywords field contain the EBUILD substring but doesn't contain the STYLE_CHECKED substring), 2/ Submitted ebuilds that have already been looked at, but need some rework to be added to the tree (closed bug, resolved as WONTFIX, assigned to maintainer-wanted, CC-ed to the concerned herd(s), where keywords field contain the EBUILD and the STYLE_CHECKED substrings), 3/ Submitted ebuilds that have been verified with success, but haven't been tested nor included int the tree yet (open bugs, assigned to maintainer-needed, CC-ed to the concerned herd(s), where keywords contain the EBUILD and the STYLE_CHECKED substrings). That makes a lot of things to remind when changing bug states. Hopefully it will reduce herd loads significantly if it can be ensured that they're only sent high quality ebuilds... Can this be added to the bugzilla-howto, whatever the final decision is? Imho, there are several points missing in this howto, like security status whiteboard policy (which can be found in the Vulnerability Treatment Policy), keywords policy (I wasn't aware of the EBUILD vs REQUEST for maintainer-wanted) and priority (how is it really used?). That would be great, especially for new developers as well as users to better understand what's going on with the bugzilla. Furthermore, could the bugzilla bug lifecycle (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.18/html/lifecycle.html) be referenced in the bugzilla-howto, or even better, updated with Gentoo workflow characteristics and included? Any comments? Thanks, -- Julien Allanos (dju`) Gentoo Linux Developer (web-apps) GnuPG key: 0x1EC6C6C2 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Ok. You have until whenever I next encounter Jeff to come up with a | better name, or REVIEWED it is. And it seems I was dreaming about | bugzilla allowing () stuff after keywords entries (maybe I was thinking | of one of the zillion other bug trackers out there...), so there'll be | no "who did the review" tag suffix for now. It seems to me that using the existing Inclusion keyword could do fine. Thanks, Donnie -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBYabXVaO67S1rtsRArhUAJ99IP9l4YwY34BF+nimjWKt4FPkQgCfXxe6 z1Vi2T81CuK7Fk/V8wngkkY= =8aR3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:22:30 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Fernando J. Pereda wrote: | > I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved' | > the ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to | > work'. REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho. | | I like REVIEWED; it seems to reflect the intended meaning. Ok. You have until whenever I next encounter Jeff to come up with a better name, or REVIEWED it is. And it seems I was dreaming about bugzilla allowing () stuff after keywords entries (maybe I was thinking of one of the zillion other bug trackers out there...), so there'll be no "who did the review" tag suffix for now. | And I'm please that Ciaran is promoting peer review of ebuilds. Now if | we can just get him off the idea that dev submitted stuff is 'correct | by default' we'll be getting somewhere in terms of QA. ;) Oh come on, haven't you heard my rants about the state of the tree and the number of monkeys who have commit access? Problem is, getting decent QA done once things hit the tree is in many cases very difficult -- the kind of people who won't accept QA feedback are usually the kind who are making the worst mistakes. The maintainer-wanted list is simply an easier target... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgp9WUXFPMX3D.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fernando J. Pereda wrote: > I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved' the > ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to work'. > REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho. > I like REVIEWED; it seems to reflect the intended meaning. And I'm please that Ciaran is promoting peer review of ebuilds. Now if we can just get him off the idea that dev submitted stuff is 'correct by default' we'll be getting somewhere in terms of QA. ;) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBSZG2QTTR4CNEQARAsYTAJ9slITUxSB8PovswA5MShV36uP1xwCfRnZB s464221vXli1LtlwKVtS+c8= =4POr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:05:43PM +0200, Grobian wrote: > > > Maurice van der Pot wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >>Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the > >>bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead. > > > >Whoah! Isn't REVIEWED the perfect keyword? > > > > or APPROVED? I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved' the ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to work'. REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho. Cheers, Ferdy -- \\|// . . . o o o o O O ( Born to be ) o o ( FREE ) +--ooO--O--Ooo---+ | Fernando José Pereda GarcimartÃn - 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 | ++ pgp7ybycy98a9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Maurice van der Pot wrote: On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead. Whoah! Isn't REVIEWED the perfect keyword? or APPROVED? -- Fabian Groffen -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the > bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead. Whoah! Isn't REVIEWED the perfect keyword? -- Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kfk4ever.com pgpJbxgSZ1L8v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:24:53 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:14:36 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | wrote: | | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | | > Can anyone suggest | | > a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)... | | > | | | | I like the idea. | | | | SYNTAX_CHECKED(nick) maybe? | | Seemant suggested VERIFIED(nick). I'm going with that. Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpQNDmBZ5vQv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:14:36 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > Can anyone suggest | > a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)... | > | | I like the idea. | | SYNTAX_CHECKED(nick) maybe? Seemant suggested VERIFIED(nick). I'm going with that. And the process works! I've gotten two nice shiny fixed ebuilds out of it this evening already. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpTeKdvqQI4L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Can anyone suggest > a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)... > I like the idea. SYNTAX_CHECKED(nick) maybe? lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things
Currently, things assigned to maintainer-wanted get the following keywords (bugzilla, not ebuild): * EBUILD if an ebuild is attached * REQUEST if an ebuild is requested 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. Note that I'm being pretty strict about quoting, style etc, partly because one easy way of improving tree QA is by making sure that new entries are of a high standard and partly because it would be nice for herds to be able to get a perfect, probably no changes needed ebuild. Sure, some of the existing tree is far from ideal, but that's no excuse for adding new shoddy things. 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. This does **not** mean that the developer has tried to actually merge the package. There're all kinds of things for which I can say "the ebuild looks good", but not so many for which I can say "the ebuild looks good and installs something that works", since a lot of them have insanely long dependency lists or specific hardware requirements. Can anyone suggest a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)... Hopefully it will reduce herd loads significantly if it can be ensured that they're only sent high quality ebuilds... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpenq51Z5Dbu.pgp Description: PGP signature
