--On 11. April 2006 23:00:01 +0200 Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I feel there is a mismatch between the policies for the Zope collectors and the text on the entry page of these collectors, which seems to frustrate both users and the developers caring about the collectors.
I agree.
are welcome; instead there seems to be a strict policy about submissions requiring: - patches must come with unit test proving the patch fixes some issue
"should come": untested code is basically broken (to cite Stefan Holek).In addition a patch is more likely to be accepted by a supporter if is has tests.
- patches for new features must apply to the trunk
nothing to add, this is a common rule for Zope 2 and Zope 3
- bug reports should at least include the traceback
nothing to add, asking a bunch of times back get the necessary informationto get even a clue about a problem is one the most of annoying thing when dealing with bugreports
- only supported combinations of python/zope are supported, and issues
should be reproduceable with a stock Zope installation without add-ons
...
Bascially yes, but we also have an eye on the major frameworks like CMF & Plone.
All users violating the policy are told about their mistake very strictly by Andreas Jung then. However, none of these requirements are mentioned on the start page for the collector.
..basically because the collector is often misunderstood as discussion board and helpdesk.
Other projects do have such requirements stated in big letters on their bug trackers front page; these might even include to ask first on the relevant mailing list before reporting a bug. I think its better to tell people in advance that to have to tell them later that their bug report does not meet the checklist.
Nothing against a false bugreport as long as it is clear, understandable and reasonable. But weird and incomplete bug reports have the best chance to be ignored and rejected.
Does anyone share my point of view the collector overview page should state the requirements explicitely? If yes, is there any interest that I try to formulate some alternative text for the front page (which would need to be polished by some native speaker)?
I would definitely appreciate that.
P.S. apologies if I am on the wrong list - if so, has anyone pointers about a better place to post this?
zope-dev would have been better. Andreas
pgp1tQSSHAD7p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
