Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 21/06/13 03:53 PM, Alex Xu wrote: > On 21/06/13 03:27 PM, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 21.06.2013 23:22, Sergey Popov пишет: >>> 2) package has dead upstream, does not build with current >>> gcc/glibc/binutils/whatever and can not be fixed - bug is >>> closed as OBSOLETE. >>> >> >> Of course i am talking about long-standing bugs, that assigned >> to maintainer-wanted@. That's why OBSOLETE seems to be a better >> decision, but WONTFIX is reasonable too :-) >> > nobody needs it: OBSOLETE it doesn't work: CANTFIX > For many m-w bugs, its existence in overlays like sunrise still apply here to whether or not the bug should be left active and valid, tho. I think it might still be beneficial to filter out the m-w bugs that are tagged with InOverlay -- or at least, not expect them to be resolved or closed unless the sunrise dev's take care of this when they drop the package. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlHIYa4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPADuQD/RSPQY3rmzp9tjVURHZFNgsut 04MIae+7g/S9AcG64e8BAKmqmIBHeJv0+qDDfs5gZA9xoEJBiRmxDaFrdLnmBDZS =Yyyi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
On 21/06/13 03:27 PM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 21.06.2013 23:22, Sergey Popov пишет: >> 2) package has dead upstream, does not build with current >> gcc/glibc/binutils/whatever and can not be fixed - bug is closed as >> OBSOLETE. >> > > Of course i am talking about long-standing bugs, that assigned to > maintainer-wanted@. That's why OBSOLETE seems to be a better decision, > but WONTFIX is reasonable too :-) > nobody needs it: OBSOLETE it doesn't work: CANTFIX signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
21.06.2013 23:22, Sergey Popov пишет: > 2) package has dead upstream, does not build with current > gcc/glibc/binutils/whatever and can not be fixed - bug is closed as > OBSOLETE. > Of course i am talking about long-standing bugs, that assigned to maintainer-wanted@. That's why OBSOLETE seems to be a better decision, but WONTFIX is reasonable too :-) -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop-effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
21.06.2013 23:08, Andreas K. Huettel пишет: > Am Freitag, 21. Juni 2013, 14:50:29 schrieb Markos Chandras: >> On 21 June 2013 12:44, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: >>> 2013/6/21 Pacho Ramos >>> Could "maintainer-wanted" assigned bugs be filtered? Otherwise we see a ton of that kind of bugs that, I think, we already know can become really old ;) Thanks! >>> >>> You can do such yourself. Just clone the repo [1] and commit the updated >>> links. >>> >>> Also my plan was to list even m-w bugs, because even those suckers get >>> obsoleted often so we should close them. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> [1] >>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/qa-scripts.git;a=summary >> >> That is true. There is nothing special about there m-w bugs. They are >> still unresolved bugs, for many years. No need to treat >> them differently. >> > > How can a m-w bug be resolved? Adding the package is unlikely to happen if > last request came years ago. > > My suggestion would be (this is how I handled it in printing): > > 1) leave message on bug > "Is anyone still interested in this?" > > 2) if noone replies in 2 months, resolve as obsolete > > IMO maintainer-wanted@ bugs can be resolved only in two ways: 1) package accepted into main tree, bug is closed as FIXED. If package sits in sunrise - it's not a solution and bug should not be closed; 2) package has dead upstream, does not build with current gcc/glibc/binutils/whatever and can not be fixed - bug is closed as OBSOLETE. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop-effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
Dnia 2013-06-21, o godz. 21:08:45 "Andreas K. Huettel" napisał(a): > Am Freitag, 21. Juni 2013, 14:50:29 schrieb Markos Chandras: > > That is true. There is nothing special about there m-w bugs. They are > > still unresolved bugs, for many years. No need to treat > > them differently. > > How can a m-w bug be resolved? Adding the package is unlikely to happen if > last request came years ago. > > My suggestion would be (this is how I handled it in printing): > > 1) leave message on bug > "Is anyone still interested in this?" Er, unless you're going to do something about the bug, please don't do that. Otherwise, it's like pinging someone and then telling 'ok, nevermind.' -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
Am Freitag, 21. Juni 2013, 14:50:29 schrieb Markos Chandras: > On 21 June 2013 12:44, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > > 2013/6/21 Pacho Ramos > > > >> Could "maintainer-wanted" assigned bugs be filtered? Otherwise we see a > >> ton of that kind of bugs that, I think, we already know can become > >> really old ;) > >> > >> Thanks! > > > > You can do such yourself. Just clone the repo [1] and commit the updated > > links. > > > > Also my plan was to list even m-w bugs, because even those suckers get > > obsoleted often so we should close them. > > > > Cheers > > > > Tom > > > > [1] > > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/qa-scripts.git;a=summary > > That is true. There is nothing special about there m-w bugs. They are > still unresolved bugs, for many years. No need to treat > them differently. > How can a m-w bug be resolved? Adding the package is unlikely to happen if last request came years ago. My suggestion would be (this is how I handled it in printing): 1) leave message on bug "Is anyone still interested in this?" 2) if noone replies in 2 months, resolve as obsolete -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
On 21 June 2013 12:44, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > 2013/6/21 Pacho Ramos >> >> Could "maintainer-wanted" assigned bugs be filtered? Otherwise we see a >> ton of that kind of bugs that, I think, we already know can become >> really old ;) >> >> Thanks! >> > You can do such yourself. Just clone the repo [1] and commit the updated > links. > > Also my plan was to list even m-w bugs, because even those suckers get > obsoleted often so we should close them. > > Cheers > > Tom > > [1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/qa-scripts.git;a=summary That is true. There is nothing special about there m-w bugs. They are still unresolved bugs, for many years. No need to treat them differently. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
2013/6/21 Pacho Ramos > Could "maintainer-wanted" assigned bugs be filtered? Otherwise we see a > ton of that kind of bugs that, I think, we already know can become > really old ;) > > Thanks! > > You can do such yourself. Just clone the repo [1] and commit the updated links. Also my plan was to list even m-w bugs, because even those suckers get obsoleted often so we should close them. Cheers Tom [1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/qa-scripts.git;a=summary
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
El jue, 14-02-2013 a las 19:19 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal escribió: > Hi, > > I added the bug queries to http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/ based by year of > last > being touched. > > Take look, try to close the oldest ones/invalid ones and so on. > > I think it is lame we have bugs last touched in 2k5 :-P > > Cheers > > Tom > > Could "maintainer-wanted" assigned bugs be filtered? Otherwise we see a ton of that kind of bugs that, I think, we already know can become really old ;) Thanks!
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > I think it is lame we have bugs last touched in 2k5 :-P Yeah, very useful. I went through most of the Python bugs and cleaned some up. It looks like there's a *lot* of maintainer-wanted bugs that are very old. I wonder if we can script cleaning those up; check how many CC addresses, see if the upstream HOMEPAGE is still up, that kind of things. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
2013/2/15 Gilles Dartiguelongue : > On another note, I just saw a report for EAPI per eclass which is super > nice but unfortunately, EAPI=5 is listed but actually unsupported by the > result of the scan :) > This can't be done better right now, as we use pkgcore to gather these stats and it is still not supporting eapi5. At the point it gets interpreted by pkgcore it will sort itself out. Tom
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
Le jeudi 14 février 2013 à 19:19 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal a écrit : > Hi, > > I added the bug queries to http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/ based by year of > last > being touched. > > Take look, try to close the oldest ones/invalid ones and so on. > > I think it is lame we have bugs last touched in 2k5 :-P This is nice. On another note, I just saw a report for EAPI per eclass which is super nice but unfortunately, EAPI=5 is listed but actually unsupported by the result of the scan :) -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
2013/2/15 Markos Chandras : > On 14 February 2013 19:26, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: >> Dne Čt 14. února 2013 18:34:10, Markos Chandras napsal(a): >>> >>> Why not 2011 and 2012 as well? >> >> Feel free to add more, its on qa-scripts git repository. >> > > Ok I was just wondering if there was a reason you did not add them > along with the others. > I was just too lazy and i was only curious for the long open bugs :P
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
2013/2/15 Alec Warner : > > I was under the impression we just left those bugs open forever...are > we closing them now? > Why should we keep them opened forever. They should be closed when the package is no longer provided anywhere or obsoleted by something else.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > 2013/2/14 Agostino Sarubbo : >> Probably we don't need to see maintainer-wanted stuff.. > > Oh but we need to see them, quite few of those can be closed as > invalid because the upstream is long ago dead. > > Tom > I was under the impression we just left those bugs open forever...are we closing them now? -A
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
On 14 February 2013 19:26, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Dne Čt 14. února 2013 18:34:10, Markos Chandras napsal(a): >> >> Why not 2011 and 2012 as well? > > Feel free to add more, its on qa-scripts git repository. > Ok I was just wondering if there was a reason you did not add them along with the others. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
2013/2/14 Agostino Sarubbo : > Probably we don't need to see maintainer-wanted stuff.. Oh but we need to see them, quite few of those can be closed as invalid because the upstream is long ago dead. Tom
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
Dne Čt 14. února 2013 18:34:10, Markos Chandras napsal(a): > > Why not 2011 and 2012 as well? Feel free to add more, its on qa-scripts git repository.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
On Thursday 14 February 2013 19:19:52 Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > I added the bug queries to http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/ based by year of > last being touched. > > Take look, try to close the oldest ones/invalid ones and so on. > > I think it is lame we have bugs last touched in 2k5 Probably we don't need to see maintainer-wanted stuff.. -- Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at- gentoo.org Gentoo Linux Developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
On 14 February 2013 18:19, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Hi, > > I added the bug queries to http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/ based by year of last > being touched. > > Take look, try to close the oldest ones/invalid ones and so on. > > I think it is lame we have bugs last touched in 2k5 :-P > > Cheers > > Tom > Why not 2011 and 2012 as well? -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
[gentoo-dev] Last time touched bugs by year
Hi, I added the bug queries to http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/ based by year of last being touched. Take look, try to close the oldest ones/invalid ones and so on. I think it is lame we have bugs last touched in 2k5 :-P Cheers Tom
