[gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 485 bytes --]

There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
question but there's a difference of opinion here:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
team is the one in charge.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 473 bytes --]

On 3/12/10 8:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch.

Why a special case for that? The general rule seems to be that the owner
is the maintaining herd (if any), otherwise the maintainer. Then all
arch teams and possible co-maintaining herds are CC-ed.

Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about any of these, just prefer a
simplicity of the rules.

Paweł Hajdan jr


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --]

On 03/12/2010 09:39 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/12/10 8:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
>> bug with only a single arch.
> 
> Why a special case for that? The general rule seems to be that the owner
> is the maintaining herd (if any), otherwise the maintainer. Then all
> arch teams and possible co-maintaining herds are CC-ed.
> 

Perhaps a bad habit but I have been using my way as a gentle reminder on
really old bugs to minor arches that you should do something already by
switching them from Cc to assignee.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Samuli Suominen]

On 03/12/2010 09:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
> team is the one in charge.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 

said archteam maintains the _keyword_, not the ebuild maintainers, so
goes to the arch

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Jeremy Olexa]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>
wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
> team is the one in charge.

The "problem" with assigning bugs to arch teams is when the user comments
on the bug after it is resolved. If the arch team is CC'd, they remove
themselves when done and any comments after the bug is closed goes to
someone that is interested. If the arch team is assigned, then the comment
basically goes to /dev/null. So, if we are to improve the user experience,
assign to maintainer and CC arch team.

-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1428 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:11:50PM +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200, Petteri R??ty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> > bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> > question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> > Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> > I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
> > team is the one in charge.
> 
> The "problem" with assigning bugs to arch teams is when the user comments
> on the bug after it is resolved. If the arch team is CC'd, they remove
> themselves when done and any comments after the bug is closed goes to
> someone that is interested. If the arch team is assigned, then the comment
> basically goes to /dev/null. So, if we are to improve the user experience,
> assign to maintainer and CC arch team.

This is a good enough reason for me to vote for assigning bugs to
maintainers and cc'ing arch teams.  This is the way  I was taught that
this should be handled, and this comment explains why.

Since all the arch team does is stabilize or keyword, the maintainer
needs to know if other issues come up with the bug after it is closed.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12-03-2010 20:47, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:11:50PM +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200, Petteri R??ty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
>>> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
>>> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
>>> Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
>>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
>>> I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
>>> team is the one in charge.
>>
>> The "problem" with assigning bugs to arch teams is when the user comments
>> on the bug after it is resolved. If the arch team is CC'd, they remove
>> themselves when done and any comments after the bug is closed goes to
>> someone that is interested. If the arch team is assigned, then the comment
>> basically goes to /dev/null. So, if we are to improve the user experience,
>> assign to maintainer and CC arch team.
> 
> This is a good enough reason for me to vote for assigning bugs to
> maintainers and cc'ing arch teams.  This is the way  I was taught that
> this should be handled, and this comment explains why.
> 
> Since all the arch team does is stabilize or keyword, the maintainer
> needs to know if other issues come up with the bug after it is closed.
> 
> William

I agree with the above reasoning, but Petteri raised a good point about
"old bugs". I suggest that for old bugs we swap the maintainer and the
arch team so that the maintainer is added to CC and the arch team is
assigned the bug. If and or when the bug is resolved, the maintainer can
reassign the bug again.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=OgTi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Markos Chandras]

On Friday 12 March 2010 23:47:05 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:11:50PM +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200, Petteri R??ty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> > > bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> > > question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> > > Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
> > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> > > I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
> > > team is the one in charge.
> > 
> > The "problem" with assigning bugs to arch teams is when the user comments
> > on the bug after it is resolved. If the arch team is CC'd, they remove
> > themselves when done and any comments after the bug is closed goes to
> > someone that is interested. If the arch team is assigned, then the
> > comment basically goes to /dev/null. So, if we are to improve the user
> > experience, assign to maintainer and CC arch team.
> 
> This is a good enough reason for me to vote for assigning bugs to
> maintainers and cc'ing arch teams.  This is the way  I was taught that
> this should be handled, and this comment explains why.
> 
> Since all the arch team does is stabilize or keyword, the maintainer
> needs to know if other issues come up with the bug after it is closed.
> 
> William
I like that idea as well 
-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

On 03/12/2010 11:47 PM, William Hubbs wrote:

> 
> Since all the arch team does is stabilize or keyword, the maintainer
> needs to know if other issues come up with the bug after it is closed.
> 

The maintainer is the reporter or in Cc.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1606 bytes --]

On 03/12/2010 10:11 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
>> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
>> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
>> Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
>> I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
>> team is the one in charge.
> 
> The "problem" with assigning bugs to arch teams is when the user comments
> on the bug after it is resolved. If the arch team is CC'd, they remove
> themselves when done and any comments after the bug is closed goes to
> someone that is interested. If the arch team is assigned, then the comment
> basically goes to /dev/null. So, if we are to improve the user experience,
> assign to maintainer and CC arch team.
> 
> -Jeremy
> 

When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers
use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't
see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team
comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches. Let's not
forget that users are really supposed to open new bugs instead of
commenting on the resolved ones although I know there are users out
there who rather comment on a two year old only distantly related bug
than open a new one.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Samuli Suominen]

On 03/13/2010 07:07 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers
> use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't
> see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team
> comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches. Let's not
> forget that users are really supposed to open new bugs instead of
> commenting on the resolved ones although I know there are users out
> there who rather comment on a two year old only distantly related bug
> than open a new one.

I would love to see a bugzilla feature that would entirely disable
commenting on closed bugs like on archlinux's bugtracking system[1]

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general@archlinux.org/msg11996.html

That might possibly need "Request reopen" button of somesort, or we
could just always require people to open new bugs

Often people just wish to argue about the closing status, after the bug
has been resolved...

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1162 bytes --]

On 03/13/2010 07:21 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 03/13/2010 07:07 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers
>> use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't
>> see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team
>> comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches. Let's not
>> forget that users are really supposed to open new bugs instead of
>> commenting on the resolved ones although I know there are users out
>> there who rather comment on a two year old only distantly related bug
>> than open a new one.
> 
> I would love to see a bugzilla feature that would entirely disable
> commenting on closed bugs like on archlinux's bugtracking system[1]
> 
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general@archlinux.org/msg11996.html
> 
> That might possibly need "Request reopen" button of somesort, or we
> could just always require people to open new bugs
> 

Maybe just modify Bugzilla so that there's a text besides the comment
box or submit button saying that unless the fix is broken open a new bug.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Duncan]

Samuli Suominen posted on Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:21:52 +0200 as excerpted:

> On 03/13/2010 07:07 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers
>> use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't
>> see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team
>> comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches. Let's not
>> forget that users are really supposed to open new bugs instead of
>> commenting on the resolved ones although I know there are users out
>> there who rather comment on a two year old only distantly related bug
>> than open a new one.
> 
> I would love to see a bugzilla feature that would entirely disable
> commenting on closed bugs like on archlinux's bugtracking system[1]
> 
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general@archlinux.org/msg11996.html
> 
> That might possibly need "Request reopen" button of somesort, or we
> could just always require people to open new bugs
> 
> Often people just wish to argue about the closing status, after the bug
> has been resolved...

Keep in mind that disabling further comments would disable genuine 
followups as well.

There have been a few times where a bug I've filed was closed before I 
found the ultimate cause of the bug (my config or fat-fingering), where I 
leave a comment when I do find the trigger, to hopefully help out others 
who might have the issue later.

There's also the issue of thanks, especially when it was a bug of my own 
causing and the dev took the time to explain what I was doing or had 
failed to do.  Awhile back I asked here if thanks was appropriate in such 
cases, or simply the bother of an extra mail on an already closed bug and 
thus better to skip, and was told go for it, thanks is unfortunately quite 
rare, and thus appreciated because bug squashing can sometimes feel pretty 
thankless, so I've tried to do so tho I can't say I always do.  I'd feel 
quite strange (and expect it would NOT be appreciated, so would simply 
skip it) if I had to open a new bug just to say thanks for fixing the old 
one!

But a note about opening a new bug if it's still an issue and you're not 
the author and therefore can't reopen this one, possibly suggesting bug 
clone, would probably be useful, I agree with petteri/betelgeuse there.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1123 bytes --]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:07:41 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers
> use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't
> see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team
> comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches.

Hasn't the running theme for the last couple weeks been about not touching
packages you don't maintain and aren't throughly familiar with? ;)

Anyways, it's simply not the arch team's job to fix the issues that pop up
unless they somehow caused them.  If there's a bug in the ebuild an arch
tester missed it's the maintainer who is responsible for fixing it.

I think the maintainer should always be the assignee.  If/when we move to
bugzilla flags for arch testing this is going to have to be how it works
anyways.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1009 bytes --]

On 03/14/2010 10:56 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:07:41 +0200
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers
>> use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't
>> see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team
>> comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches.
> 
> Hasn't the running theme for the last couple weeks been about not touching
> packages you don't maintain and aren't throughly familiar with? ;)
> 
> Anyways, it's simply not the arch team's job to fix the issues that pop up
> unless they somehow caused them.  If there's a bug in the ebuild an arch
> tester missed it's the maintainer who is responsible for fixing it.
> 

You misunderstood what I meant. The action I am talking about is
reopening the bug. Any developer who notices that a bug should be
reopened should reopen it so it gets noticed.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:21:13 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> You misunderstood what I meant. The action I am talking about is
> reopening the bug. Any developer who notices that a bug should be
> reopened should reopen it so it gets noticed.

Sorry, my mistake.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1097 bytes --]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
> team is the one in charge.

I swear there used to be a piece of documentation that said that the final
arch on a stabilization bug should be assigned and the maintainer moved to
CC.  I can't find it any more, but that's probably where this idea came
from.  It never really made sense to me but I've done it on several occasions.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Matti Bickel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 223 bytes --]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> I can't find it any more, but that's probably where this idea came
> from.  It never really made sense to me but I've done it on several occasions.

me too. I guess it's been handed down for ages.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 929 bytes --]

On 03/12/2010 08:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
> team is the one in charge.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 

I prefer the maintainer being the assignee.

What about cases, where someone else does open that stable request bug? If the policy is to always
assign it to the maintainer, he can still decide, if or when the packages is ready, else some
stabilisation might be done, also the maintainer had still outstanding issues.

-- 
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1606 bytes --]

On 03/12/2010 09:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
> team is the one in charge.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 

So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch:

Against (and my comments on why they don't apply):
 - Comments would only go to arch team after resolving:
  * maintainer is still in Cc or Reporter
 - Arch teams not in charge of fixing problems
  * If problems come up they deserve a new bug as a dependency
  * one bug per issue and a stabilization bug is about stabilization
 - Maintainer being able to decide when to go stable
  * Bug wranglers should still assign to maintainers for their ack
  * The maintainer assigns it to the arch team

In support (and my comments in support):
 - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches
 - The arch teams are actually ones doing the work to resolve the bug
  * As they are the ones to mark it as resolved it makes sense for them
    to be the assignees

So based on this I propose that I will write this down in appropriate
places in to our documentation and commit a week from now. Please object
if you don't agree and we can discuss some more.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Alex Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2132 bytes --]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 04:26:46PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 09:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> > bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> > question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> > Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> > I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
> > team is the one in charge.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Petteri
> > 
> 
> So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch:
> 
> Against (and my comments on why they don't apply):
>  - Comments would only go to arch team after resolving:
>   * maintainer is still in Cc or Reporter
>  - Arch teams not in charge of fixing problems
>   * If problems come up they deserve a new bug as a dependency
>   * one bug per issue and a stabilization bug is about stabilization
>  - Maintainer being able to decide when to go stable
>   * Bug wranglers should still assign to maintainers for their ack
>   * The maintainer assigns it to the arch team
> 
> In support (and my comments in support):
>  - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches
>  - The arch teams are actually ones doing the work to resolve the bug
>   * As they are the ones to mark it as resolved it makes sense for them
>     to be the assignees
> 
> So based on this I propose that I will write this down in appropriate
> places in to our documentation and commit a week from now. Please object
> if you don't agree and we can discuss some more.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri

The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks
consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC arch(es).
Why make it more complicated? I have a feeling people will continue
CCing arches out of habit.

Ofcourse, individual cases (such as slacking arches) can be handled
independently.

-- 
Alex Alexander :: wired
Gentoo Developer
www.linuxized.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> 
> The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks
> consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC arch(es).
> Why make it more complicated? I have a feeling people will continue
> CCing arches out of habit.
>

I don't think we should punish people for not doing it this way but
consider it the preferred way when doing new bugs. The initial point
here was to tell arches that assigning bugs directly to them is not wrong.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > 
> > The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks
> > consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC
> > arch(es). Why make it more complicated? I have a feeling people
> > will continue CCing arches out of habit.

+1.

> I don't think we should punish people for not doing it this way but
> consider it the preferred way when doing new bugs. The initial point
> here was to tell arches that assigning bugs directly to them is not
> wrong.

Not wrong, just annoying for the arch team in question. Before
resolving the bug report, you'd reassign to the maintainer and then
close it? Why change it around twice, or even once for that matter?


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1005 bytes --]

On 04/01/2010 11:28 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks
>>> consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC
>>> arch(es). Why make it more complicated? I have a feeling people
>>> will continue CCing arches out of habit.
> 
> +1.
> 
>> I don't think we should punish people for not doing it this way but
>> consider it the preferred way when doing new bugs. The initial point
>> here was to tell arches that assigning bugs directly to them is not
>> wrong.
> 
> Not wrong, just annoying for the arch team in question. Before
> resolving the bug report, you'd reassign to the maintainer and then
> close it? Why change it around twice, or even once for that matter?
> 
> 

I don't think I have ever suggested this or then I have been misunderstood.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Torsten Veller]

* Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:
> So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch:

> In support (and my comments in support):
>  - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches

And if not "only one arch" or "single arch" is slacking?
I guess you would find another gentle way to remind them.


How about a tool generating mails to arch teams, which lists all
STABLEREQ, KEQWORDREQ bugs to which the arch team is CC'ed for a month?
(Or probably easier or possible at all: which weren't changed for 30 days.)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Torsten Veller <ml-en@veller.net> wrote:
> * Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:
>> So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch:
>
>> In support (and my comments in support):
>>  - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches
>
> And if not "only one arch" or "single arch" is slacking?
> I guess you would find another gentle way to remind them.
>
>
> How about a tool generating mails to arch teams, which lists all
> STABLEREQ, KEQWORDREQ bugs to which the arch team is CC'ed for a month?
> (Or probably easier or possible at all: which weren't changed for 30 days.)

I'd opt for a webpage personally.  I have found that push-nag systems
work well at first until the nagging increases to a level where the
nag-ee just filters the mail away.  This happens often at work.  For
example I get emails telling me to delete unused perforce clients; but
those mails just get marked as read by a filter and archived.

Could we generate a bugzilla search for arch teams?  Do arch teams
already use existing bugzilla functionality?

-A

>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Matti Bickel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 406 bytes --]

Alec Warner wrote:
> Could we generate a bugzilla search for arch teams?  Do arch teams
> already use existing bugzilla functionality?

At least when i was with the ppc team, we had a bugzie search. And
bugzie already sorts your query for you. I guess it could be made to
only show keyword=STABLEREQ, bug changed = -1month since bug creation,
assigned OR cc contains ppc@ or something like that.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2161 bytes --]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:26:46 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 03/12/2010 09:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> > bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> > question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> > Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here:
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> > I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch
> > team is the one in charge.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Petteri
> > 
> 
> So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch:
> 
> Against (and my comments on why they don't apply):
>  - Comments would only go to arch team after resolving:
>   * maintainer is still in Cc or Reporter
>  - Arch teams not in charge of fixing problems
>   * If problems come up they deserve a new bug as a dependency
>   * one bug per issue and a stabilization bug is about stabilization
>  - Maintainer being able to decide when to go stable
>   * Bug wranglers should still assign to maintainers for their ack
>   * The maintainer assigns it to the arch team
> 
> In support (and my comments in support):
>  - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches
>  - The arch teams are actually ones doing the work to resolve the bug
>   * As they are the ones to mark it as resolved it makes sense for them
>     to be the assignees
> 
> So based on this I propose that I will write this down in appropriate
> places in to our documentation and commit a week from now. Please object
> if you don't agree and we can discuss some more.

You ignored my point about this being completely moot once we start using
flags in bugzilla for arch teams.  We'll have to change the policy then
to the maintainer being the assignee anyways.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 317 bytes --]

On 04/11/2010 01:38 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> 
> You ignored my point about this being completely moot once we start using
> flags in bugzilla for arch teams.  We'll have to change the policy then
> to the maintainer being the assignee anyways.
> 

Then we will do it when that happens.

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:41:34 +0300
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 04/11/2010 01:38 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > 
> > You ignored my point about this being completely moot once we start using
> > flags in bugzilla for arch teams.  We'll have to change the policy then
> > to the maintainer being the assignee anyways.
> > 
> 
> Then we will do it when that happens.

Okay, thanks.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]