Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-27 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:40:42 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: Okay, so what are you using the STABLEREQ keyword for that you want to set it when the bug is filed but before archs are added? If you want to see only stabilization bugs you can search in the Keywording and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:40:42 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: Okay, so what are you using the STABLEREQ keyword for that you want to set it when the bug is filed but before archs are added? The people that decided to change their way of using this keyword, did so because setting it

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-23 Thread Duncan
Jeroen Roovers posted on Wed, 22 May 2013 17:21:46 +0200 as excerpted: On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:46:22 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: As a user, I've understood: * Severity is something the user/filer can use. So when Chromium doesn't compile on your machine, you set it as a

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-23 Thread Ryan Hill
On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:00:46 +0200 Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead? (What

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-23 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:20:00 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: Is a version bump an enhancement per se? Yes. Nothing is broken. There is no bug to fix. No. Things can be broken. There are almost always bugs to fix. New versions come with bug fixes too, users need these fixes.

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-23 Thread Ryan Hill
On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:58:26 +0200 Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it themselves.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement. Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been. Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason not to change the priority and severity

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement. Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been. Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 22/05/2013 18:58, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement. Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been. Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau: And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread viv...@gmail.com
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote: On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau: And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him or, without a response, try to

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote: On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau: And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Thomas Sachau
Michael Palimaka schrieb: On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote: On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau: And if a maintainer is not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead? (What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?) Why are they enhancements?

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote: Michael Palimaka schrieb: On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote: On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 22/05/2013 21:00, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead? (What is an enhanced severity to begin with,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread viv...@gmail.com
On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote: On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote: Michael Palimaka schrieb: On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote: On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:45 +1000 Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead? (What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?) Why are they

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22/05/13 06:07 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote: On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau: And if

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22/05/13 07:16 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote: On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote: Michael Palimaka schrieb: On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation no answer to stable bug in 30 days = package unmantained ;-) This could actually work Then we'd get the Ubuntu/Launchpad situation, where

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000 Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: Yet the base system lead went and apply it to any stabilization bug; as both him and Jer (the bug wrangling lead) do it this way, I'll be doing it as well. Let's not be inconsistent with our leads unless

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22/05/13 10:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation no answer to stable bug in 30 days = package unmantained ;-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:46:22 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: As a user, I've understood: * Severity is something the user/filer can use. So when Chromium doesn't compile on your machine, you set it as a Blocker, and then it gets reverted to Normal because it works fine for the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement. The point I was making is we could improve things by a fair margin. If all stabilisation bugs had a Severity that actually reflected the severity, then I'd pay

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-22 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000 Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: A newer version of a package is usually considered to be better in some way, hence it is an enhancement. Unless it's a Blocker, of course. :) According to the bug-wrangler's own docs[1]: A stabilisation request

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-21 Thread Ryan Hill
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:17:30 -0400 Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few* people

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-21 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:40:27 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: OS: Linux Status: CONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-20 Thread Duncan
Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 20 May 2013 13:15:09 -0400 as excerpted: Severity and Priority on the Gentoo Bugzilla have always been weird to me; I would love to hear from someone who is actually using either of those to sort their bugs and using them happily, because the inconsistency applied

[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

2013-05-19 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 19/05/2013 23:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote: OS: Linux Status: CONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? Usually I think so yes. If it is an urgent stabilisation there is priority field. If all stabilisations are