[gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 427 bytes --]

I'm trying to find the best fix for
<https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=535814>

Currently file-stabilization-bugs.py uses the '%s: stabilization
request' % cpv format.

Here are some options I see:

a) keep '%s:' as is
b) change to just '%s'
c) change to '=%s:'
d) change to '=%s'
e) something else

What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid unnecessary
changes on bugzilla.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 841 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 03/05/2015 02:01 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> I'm trying to find the best fix for
> <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=535814>
> 
> Currently file-stabilization-bugs.py uses the '%s: stabilization
> request' % cpv format.
> 
> Here are some options I see:
> 
> a) keep '%s:' as is
> b) change to just '%s'
> c) change to '=%s:'
> d) change to '=%s'
> e) something else
> 
> What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid unnecessary
> changes on bugzilla.
> 

I've settled on using a colon i.e. "jer format." If the bug references a
specific version (range), then I use =, >=, etc. appropriately. In the
case of stabilization bugs, I'd throw in the "=".

So, (c).

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 03/05/2015 03:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> 
> I've settled on using a colon i.e. "jer format." If the bug references a
> specific version (range), then I use =, >=, etc. appropriately. In the
> case of stabilization bugs, I'd throw in the "=".
> 
> So, (c).
> 

Crap, I flipped a bit. I remembered that I used to use a hyphen and jer
would change it to a colons. In fact, it was the other way around. So
jer format is something like "%s - foo".

I guess I subconsciously reverted to using a colon because that's what
makes the most sense to me. But there is a little ambiguity with slots
in the package atom.

Maybe we should ask the bug wranglers team to come up with some
guidelines and stick them on the project page? Then we can do whatever
they prefer.

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 932 bytes --]

On 6 March 2015 at 09:03, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I've settled on using a colon i.e. "jer format." If the bug references a
> specific version (range), then I use =, >=, etc. appropriately. In the
> case of stabilization bugs, I'd throw in the "=".
>

I was under the impression adding "=" was just useless churn, because if a
version is specified, one can assume =.  Its only when you have a range of
versions do you need anything else.

Which is why my vote is with a or b, I don't care which. Whitespace
delimiting after package token is sufficient usually.

But sometimes I feel the grammatical flow is "weird" if there's no
punctuation, or weird if there is.

"horse stablisation" vs "horse: stabilization"  # the latter works better
than the former grammatically
"horse fails to jump gate" vs "horse: fails to jump gate" # the former is
sufficient.


-- 
Kent

*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1888 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 512 bytes --]

On 05 Mar 2015 20:01, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> I'm trying to find the best fix for
> <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=535814>
> 
> Currently file-stabilization-bugs.py uses the '%s: stabilization
> request' % cpv format.
> 
> Here are some options I see:
> 
> a) keep '%s:' as is
> b) change to just '%s'
> c) change to '=%s:'
> d) change to '=%s'
> e) something else
> 
> What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid unnecessary
> changes on bugzilla.

(a)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:01:23 +0100
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I'm trying to find the best fix for
> <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=535814>
> 
> Currently file-stabilization-bugs.py uses the '%s: stabilization
> request' % cpv format.
> 
> Here are some options I see:
> 
> a) keep '%s:' as is
> b) change to just '%s'
> c) change to '=%s:'
> d) change to '=%s'
> e) something else
> 
> What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid
> unnecessary changes on bugzilla.

Put a space before the colon (or any delimiter you happen to prefer).
Both cpv:XYZ and cpv::ABC have a special meaning. If nothing else it
improves legibility through the simple application of whitespace.

As for the equal sign, portage should really simply support leaving it
out and interpret '=' as the default. Functionally there should be no
difference between '=a/b-c' and 'a/b-c' anyway, and yet it trips up
emerge.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:20:23 -0500
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:

> So jer format is something like "%s - foo".

Yes. I now have a format named after me.

> I guess I subconsciously reverted to using a colon because that's what
> makes the most sense to me. But there is a little ambiguity with slots
> in the package atom.

That should be fine. To me it's all about increased legibility through
the use of _whitespace_, not the actual delimiter. Put there whatever
you want.

> Maybe we should ask the bug wranglers team to come up with some
> guidelines and stick them on the project page? Then we can do whatever
> they prefer.

What I haven't seen at all in the past six years is people doing what
b-w prefers. Which is why I'm currently "on leave" with regard to the
daily 5 hour job of bug wrangling. I simply burned out some two weeks
ago and I'm gradually picking up much more interesting tasks rather
than going back to the grind.

One of the major problems is that there is no format we agree on, which
gives plenty of bad examples in the tracker that are validated over and
over for users (broadly speaking, bugzilla users) picking their own
format based on whatever they can come up with. Every attempt to push a
standard has beached on bikeshedding about the format so far.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 917 bytes --]

>>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:

> I'm trying to find the best fix for
> <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=535814>

> Currently file-stabilization-bugs.py uses the '%s: stabilization
> request' % cpv format.

The Emacs team used to have a stabilisation template with summary
"Please stabilise %s" for many years. After discussing with jer some
time ago, we changed it to "%s stable request" (i.e. with the package
atom first).

> Here are some options I see:

> a) keep '%s:' as is
> b) change to just '%s'
> c) change to '=%s:'
> d) change to '=%s'
> e) something else

> What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid
> unnecessary changes on bugzilla.

I'd prefer a) or b). The equals sign is redundant if it's about a
single package atom only.

And if it's going to be a) then there should be a space after the
colon, but none before.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
<phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid unnecessary
> changes on bugzilla.

Out of curiousity, what makes the changes necessary in the first
place?  It seems like an incredible amount of effort is going into
standardizing the format of textual summary lines and perhaps the
simplest solution is to just not standardize them at all.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Sven Vermeulen]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:55:13AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Out of curiousity, what makes the changes necessary in the first
> place?  It seems like an incredible amount of effort is going into
> standardizing the format of textual summary lines and perhaps the
> simplest solution is to just not standardize them at all.

It doesn't hurt to have a recommendation, and personally I really appreciate
when people (yes, that includes developers and wranglers ;-) update the line
to be more informative. There already is a recommendation on the wiki, part
of the Bug Wranglers project [1].

[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Bug-wranglers

The difference between the segregation character (be it ': ', ' - ', ' : '
or what not) is for me less of a concern than the fact that it starts with
the category/package name+version (and with "<" in front if it has been
fixed with that version or higher). That is a real plus as I can easily see
how many fixes are in to a package, which ones to mark as FIXED when
stabilizing (I tend to use TEST-REQUEST as long as the package is still in
~arch), etc.

There are other resources on the wiki as well which might best be aligned
with whatever recommendation is used. See "Beautiful bug reports" [2] and
"Bugzilla HOWTO" [3] as examples.

[2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Beautiful_bug_reports
[3] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Bugzilla_HOWTO

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> It doesn't hurt to have a recommendation, and personally I really appreciate
> when people (yes, that includes developers and wranglers ;-) update the line
> to be more informative. There already is a recommendation on the wiki, part
> of the Bug Wranglers project [1].
>

Sure, beautiful bug reports are nice, but if people are suffering
burnout over editing the line it this doesn't seem like the biggest
value-add to me.

By all means have a standard.  But, don't discourage but reporters by
asking them to rework reports if they don't conform, and don't
discourage maintainers or bug wranglers by yelling at them if they
don't clean these up.  People can of course can still make things as
pretty as they want to.

The only reason I could see for rigid adherence to a standard is if
we're using the field as input to some kind of program, and if we're
doing that then the data should really be broken down into appropriate
fields like atom, desc, etc.

So, have a best practice, but let's not get carried away with this
sort of thing to the point where people feel like it is getting in the
way.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:27:38 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> but if people are suffering burnout over editing the line it this
> doesn't seem like the biggest value-add to me.

That didn't happen.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Markos Chandras]

On 03/06/2015 07:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't hurt to have a recommendation, and personally I really appreciate
>> when people (yes, that includes developers and wranglers ;-) update the line
>> to be more informative. There already is a recommendation on the wiki, part
>> of the Bug Wranglers project [1].
>>
> 
> Sure, beautiful bug reports are nice, but if people are suffering
> burnout over editing the line it this doesn't seem like the biggest
> value-add to me.
> 
> By all means have a standard.  But, don't discourage but reporters by
> asking them to rework reports if they don't conform, and don't
> discourage maintainers or bug wranglers by yelling at them if they
> don't clean these up.  People can of course can still make things as
> pretty as they want to.
> 
> The only reason I could see for rigid adherence to a standard is if
> we're using the field as input to some kind of program, and if we're
> doing that then the data should really be broken down into appropriate
> fields like atom, desc, etc.
> 
> So, have a best practice, but let's not get carried away with this
> sort of thing to the point where people feel like it is getting in the
> way.
> 

I too feel that whatever gets decided here will soon be forgotten and
people will revert back to whatever makes more sense to them. Would it
be terribly difficult to set a template in the "Summary" field whenever
the "Keywording and Stabilization" component is selected when filing a bug?

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 20:58:06 +0000
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Would it be terribly difficult to set a template in the "Summary"
> field whenever the "Keywording and Stabilization" component is
> selected when filing a bug?

No, just very naive.

Just today I caught yet another fresh keywording request that
had neither the "Keywording and Stabilization" component nor the
KEYWORDREQ keyword set.


     jer