From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FoeP7-0002vm-MN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:39:50 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k59Ac12Q019080; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:38:01 GMT Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz (gw.top-hosting.cz [81.0.254.91]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k59AXmAD014608 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:33:48 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826A1535F30 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:33:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.top-hosting.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 11021-04-3 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:33:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.1] (7.201.broadband6.iol.cz [88.101.201.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4035451F5E4 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:33:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44894E7C.5070302@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:33:32 +0200 From: Jakub Moc User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification References: <44887368.9030302@gentoo.org> <1149803837.19443.101.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <4488A4F3.5060908@gentoo.org> <1149811589.19102.23.camel@vertigo.twi-31o2.org> <1149841698.9743.20.camel@localhost> <1149847297.19408.14.camel@capella.catmur.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <1149847297.19408.14.camel@capella.catmur.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 OpenPGP: url=http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig8AE006D5659619C598E732C9" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at top-hosting.cz X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.339 tagged_above=-999 required=6 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599] X-Spam-Score: -2.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: 859a8cc9-e454-4df4-8f01-81eea56bab7a X-Archives-Hash: 4a009f6ffe8f83a99de4f680c177064e This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig8AE006D5659619C598E732C9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Edward Catmur wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:28 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Instead of a simple cvs up; cd /usr/local/portage/category/package I >> need to search for ALL bugs with $name in it, look which one it is, >> curse bugzilla for falling asleep again, see which attachments are >> relevant, download them, curse bugzilla for falling asleep again, copy= >> them to my overlay, read the bugcomments to see if any special renamin= g >> or directory structure is needed ... >> >> Hmmm. I think an overlay does have some advantages there ... >=20 > Advantages? With bugzilla I: search for the bug, cc myself on it, > download the relevant files, look over them, note a style error, try to= > merge it, fix a compilation bug, re-upload the fixed ebuild and patch t= o > bugzilla with a comment to the ebuild author on their mistake. When an > update hits my inbox I can go directly to the bug... Hmmm, I mostly notice a different scenario: - search for the bug, and file a dupe because you didn't find it :P - bug gets marked as a dupe - the guy who filed the dupe comments on how much bugzilla search sucks - download one of obsolete broken ebuilds attached to the bug - moan that it doesn't work - download another ebuild - moan that it doesn't work either - someone points to comment #27 that says you need to edit lines XX and YY for the ebuild to work - do it, post yet another redundant "yay, that finally worked!" comment - attach a "fixed" ebuild tarball - you get scream upon to not attach tarballs - you attach a plaintext ebuild now - notice that its MIME type is application/octet-stream - change the mime type - look at the ebuild in the browser now that you can and notice bunch of stupid typos you've done that ruin the whole fix (hello, Mr. Murphy) - try to edit the attachment in bugzilla, which produces one huge nonsense comment instead of actually editing the ebuild - attach a new one - oh noes, it's octet-stream again! argh! - fix it... - forgot to mark previous one as obsolete, do it now - produce "sorry for the noise" comment - someone notices that you've still left two typos there and attaches yet another ebuild By now, about 15 bugspams times the number of people CCed on the bug got sent, containing mostly useless crap. > With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package (no, I don't= > know category/name), sync that directory (no, I'm not syncing the whole= =20 > sunrice tree), check it over, note some mistakes, compile it if I feel > OK with it, it fails, I fix it - and what then? Where do I discuss the > problems? How do I get my fixes to other users, considering the package= > is devless and the b.g.o bug is out of date? If I open a b.g.o bug, wil= l > it be read?=20 >=20 > This seems like *raising* the barrier to entry to me... Yes, with an overlay you can prevent all the attachment screwups noted above and once you are really satisfied that it works, you post a link to bugzilla. You can fix your typos in VCS, even multiple times, without bugspamming the hell out of people, and you still have the history to go back if you screw up. Bugs with tens of attachments are essentially useless for most of newcomers and suck for effective development as well. A couple of examples: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D24247 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D70161 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D122500 --=20 Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:jakub@gentoo.org GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3= D9E ... still no signature ;) --------------enig8AE006D5659619C598E732C9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEiU6DhxfV/c66PZ4RA4d9AKCEIDQv5+s00i8b7cGnuGZQwmZzPQCfRWe4 fYyVy6i8S6g2kEplL++f2rQ= =ogmF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig8AE006D5659619C598E732C9-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list