From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82731381F3 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:23:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A078E079C; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:23:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jacques.telenet-ops.be (jacques.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24BB7E06CC for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:23:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by jacques.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id eJPl1l00t2khLEN0JJPl4C; Mon, 20 May 2013 20:23:46 +0200 Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 20:21:50 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs Message-ID: <20130520202150.32b27874@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: References: <20130519154027.37b6cdf4@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20130520172943.1801c24d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; x86_64-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: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/=FtidpStwhNUsDaHv6KFPvS"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: b7f0652a-f1d4-4435-aa01-b74fd4c7ff6f X-Archives-Hash: 1d361c272404332ed81b78f999258db3 --Sig_/=FtidpStwhNUsDaHv6KFPvS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:15:09 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > Tend to agree, but rather than focusing on figuring out who messed > up/etc, let's just move forward. The link would be handy to refer to when we need to educate future people; but anyhow, someone else responded something relevant just now. Regarding who, it's not a single person; the majority of bugs that _aren't_ automatically filed show this problem, multiple people do so. Nobody did bad, there's just a lack of communication *from both sides*. > Short of making an automated bug reporting policy I'm not sure how to > better document things. I agree that it is easy to miss stuff in list > archives. Bottom line is people shouldn't take this stuff personally > - just improve and move on. Yeah, imho, bots and scripts that run mass actions against anything in the Gentoo infrastructure should be reviewed or be made according to such policy. I haven't seen a review of the last mass actions being, and I don't think they are implemented according to certain standards. Some thoughts: - Rate limiting. - Skim the list the script applies to for exceptions. - Run a small enough subset as a test before running the entire thing. > > > > 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 by different people is making a mess of > > them. >=20 > I suspect we could just get by with one field. Probably, how would such field work? One field being just priority? > But, since we're not getting paid it really is more of a > communication/organization tool. At work when we mark bugs high we > expect them to get fixed, since the devs are paid to work on what we > want them to work on, and if that means leaving the blocker alone > while making the splash screen look prettier that's management's > prerogative. Yeah, and here at Gentoo the version bumps are attractive; until there are no more version bumps to do, then we often just pick a random bug where we should probably pick one of the more important ones. > If we do want to have two fields, then the one should be more of a > factual statement (is it an improvement, something that makes the > package unusable for some users, a regression, something that makes > the package unusable for all users, removal of a blocker, etc - > roughly in increasing severity), and the other a true priority (H/M/L > - which is at the discretion of the maintainer, but perhaps set > initially based on guidelines in order to help them out). Yes, bringing more meaning into them is what would be nice to see. --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/=FtidpStwhNUsDaHv6KFPvS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRmmnBAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9CBgH/AmUfG+ffWSCGD9XLpBi3GEd 5t05RMyXIEcyLwkUjgrNwKA2lMG/fBV5ZQ1INTGu2hWkJeLn00DyCGpo4tRgzzIi EjK5Vfpxs4I0Orda7oEHjtJEn7jmhxhtxr+j7QyyQRulrip7NehN5qFoJ9R7wtGu h8WU3XWpqIvx4Pz2lsQcodOifTFQnUMuHo381NSLg4UG11SoHFU6XFK4DdI+JnYV QmCUOnxXi5z474qlR43M1O4Zwa3Wm2FWX9UY4RVPfakGd2Gg8tA+bh9AjOD2dzpG vBN6iV4BiAgDyqB1OG5ovlUSE4ytaVyjUfuqY1GkXdGAUdBgVuOs8+7QQJv5kbU= =11t5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/=FtidpStwhNUsDaHv6KFPvS--