[gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[Ernst Herzberg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]


dev-util/esvn:

0.6.8-r1 was masked, and has some crazy bugs, that this stuff is not usable 
for an 'enduser'. If you select an 'working directory', the last character of 
the path get lost. You have to create a workspace, select there a working 
directory, add the last character by hand....

OkOk, as long as this stuff is masked, no problem. BUT: Upstream has released 
a new version with this bug fixed. Why went the buggy version stable? And the 
new with the bug fixed version is masked? That make no sense to me.

Can somebody explain that?

Thx, <earny>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 11 March 2005 07:01 pm, Ernst Herzberg wrote:
> dev-util/esvn:

e-mail the dev who marked it stable rather than e-mailing an entire list where 
prob majority of people have never heard of esvn

or file a bug
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[Ernst Herzberg]

On Saturday 12 March 2005 02:19, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 11 March 2005 07:01 pm, Ernst Herzberg wrote:
> > dev-util/esvn:
>
> e-mail the dev who marked it stable rather than e-mailing an entire list
> where prob majority of people have never heard of esvn
>
> or file a bug

Dangerous answer. No, i won't write a bug about that. It is not a bug, the bug 
is fixed. The bug is the way packages are released in gentoo.

How to file that bug?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[Brian Jackson]

On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 04:12 +0100, Ernst Herzberg wrote:
> On Saturday 12 March 2005 02:19, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 11 March 2005 07:01 pm, Ernst Herzberg wrote:
> > > dev-util/esvn:
> >
> > e-mail the dev who marked it stable rather than e-mailing an entire list
> > where prob majority of people have never heard of esvn
> >
> > or file a bug
> 
> Dangerous answer. No, i won't write a bug about that. It is not a bug, the bug 
> is fixed. The bug is the way packages are released in gentoo.
> 
> How to file that bug?

He didn't say file a bug, he said email the person who marked it stable.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[Stephen P. Becker]

Ernst Herzberg wrote:
> On Saturday 12 March 2005 02:19, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
>>On Friday 11 March 2005 07:01 pm, Ernst Herzberg wrote:
>>
>>>dev-util/esvn:
>>
>>e-mail the dev who marked it stable rather than e-mailing an entire list
>>where prob majority of people have never heard of esvn
>>
>>or file a bug
> 
> 
> Dangerous answer. No, i won't write a bug about that. It is not a bug, the bug 
> is fixed. The bug is the way packages are released in gentoo.
> 
> How to file that bug?

You seem to be confused.  You would use bugs.gentoo.org since the 
problem is with a gentoo ebuild.

Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 800 bytes --]

uOn Sat, 2005-12-03 at 01:01 +0100, Ernst Herzberg wrote:
> dev-util/esvn:
> 
> 0.6.8-r1 was masked, and has some crazy bugs, that this stuff is not usable 
> for an 'enduser'. If you select an 'working directory', the last character of 
> the path get lost. You have to create a workspace, select there a working 
> directory, add the last character by hand....
> 
> OkOk, as long as this stuff is masked, no problem. BUT: Upstream has released 
> a new version with this bug fixed. Why went the buggy version stable? And the 
> new with the bug fixed version is masked? That make no sense to me.
> 
> Can somebody explain that?

Maybe you should ask MrNess... But he doesn't seem to think that testing
is important... 

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
x86 Security Liaison

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 980 bytes --]

Olivier Crête wrote:

>uOn Sat, 2005-12-03 at 01:01 +0100, Ernst Herzberg wrote:
>  
>
>>dev-util/esvn:
>>
>>0.6.8-r1 was masked, and has some crazy bugs, that this stuff is not usable 
>>for an 'enduser'. If you select an 'working directory', the last character of 
>>the path get lost. You have to create a workspace, select there a working 
>>directory, add the last character by hand....
>>
>>OkOk, as long as this stuff is masked, no problem. BUT: Upstream has released 
>>a new version with this bug fixed. Why went the buggy version stable? And the 
>>new with the bug fixed version is masked? That make no sense to me.
>>
>>Can somebody explain that?
>>    
>>
>
>Maybe you should ask MrNess... But he doesn't seem to think that testing
>is important... 
>
>  
>
This package I happen to use at work, I could say I did more than a 
simple test.
Do you suggest that, if this bug is real, I should know about?
Do you understand that tests don't always detect bugs, right?



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1411 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-13-03 at 02:51 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Olivier Crête wrote:
> >On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 01:01 +0100, Ernst Herzberg wrote:
> >>>dev-util/esvn:
> >>
> >>0.6.8-r1 was masked, and has some crazy bugs, that this stuff is not usable 
> >>for an 'enduser'. If you select an 'working directory', the last character of 
> >>the path get lost. You have to create a workspace, select there a working 
> >>directory, add the last character by hand....
> >>
> >>OkOk, as long as this stuff is masked, no problem. BUT: Upstream has released 
> >>a new version with this bug fixed. Why went the buggy version stable? And the 
> >>new with the bug fixed version is masked? That make no sense to me.
> >>
> >>Can somebody explain that?
> >
> >Maybe you should ask MrNess... But he doesn't seem to think that testing
> >is important... 
> 
> This package I happen to use at work, I could say I did more than a 
> simple test.
> Do you suggest that, if this bug is real, I should know about?
> Do you understand that tests don't always detect bugs, right?

Ohh I was just commenting on another QA related thread... and I was
extrapolating that this might be related to a certain QA policy that
certain developers seem to follow... But it is sure that testing doesn't
find the interesting bugs (that's why we need users!)...

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
x86 Security Liaison

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] why went unusable versions stable?

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 777 bytes --]

Olivier Crête wrote:

>On Sun, 2005-13-03 at 02:51 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
>  
>
>>Olivier Crête wrote:
>>    
>>
>>This package I happen to use at work, I could say I did more than a 
>>simple test.
>>Do you suggest that, if this bug is real, I should know about?
>>Do you understand that tests don't always detect bugs, right?
>>    
>>
>
>Ohh I was just commenting on another QA related thread... and I was
>extrapolating that this might be related to a certain QA policy that
>certain developers seem to follow... But it is sure that testing doesn't
>find the interesting bugs (that's why we need users!)...
>
>  
>
On second thought, I've made a mistake marking this package as stable. 
It is in its early development stage and I've should look on its 
changelog first.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]