From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KEopz-00032a-QS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:12:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2E97E055D; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:12:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.25]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBACE055D for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:12:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (atwork-106.r-212.178.112.atwork.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m64HCeKU066387 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:12:41 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:12:39 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests Message-ID: <20080704191239.083c15c9@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <1215127573.4067.7.camel@localhost> References: <20080704011609.66a81d28@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <1215127573.4067.7.camel@localhost> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: 3a3e4f15-b407-411b-9cdc-cab13db672eb X-Archives-Hash: 10e5d2f7f82c96d381eac23476b58329 On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:26:13 +0100 "Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 01:16 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request? > > If it is for software where I am also upstream (Audacious for > example), it does tend to annoy me when people try their utmost to > file bug reports before I commit my ebuild. (I have yet to miss a > release by more then 6 hours) > > > 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early > > version bump requests? > > For things like the nVidia drivers I do welcome it. The time I can > spend trawling upstream sites for new releases is limited. > > Just an idea: > How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump > requests are welcome? It's more of an individual developer > preference, but that seems the right place for it. Its' half an idea, in my opinion. We need a process, not just a tag in a file. The tag in the file would tell us how a bug should perhaps be treated, and metadata.xml is an excellent place to concentrate such information, but to tell a bug wrangler (or anyone else) to "do nothing for X units of time" isn't going to work. As for what the tag might tell us, I think leaving bugs on hold for a few days is not the right approach - users (as well as, say, fellow developers and upstreams) shouldn't have to "artificially" wait to make their release announcements and bug wranglers shouldn't be expected to keep these bugs on their own lists in some artificial sense - it just means more work for everyone and more delay in communications between users and developers. I am currently thinking of making a very broad division between bump requests for more or less "independent" packages on the one hand, and packages that (clearly) belong to a suite (KDE and GNOME are good examples, although the latter team "owns" quite a few independantly useable packages) or to wildly popular packages that announces releases weeks to months ahead (Mozilla). I personally think that bump requests of the "KDE 5 OMG" and "WHEREIS FF4?" kind are to be RESOLVED as LATER forthwith. That saves a lot of dupe checking as well! :) Kind regards, JeR -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list