Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

[Tom Wijsman]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:15:09 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> 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.
>
> 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.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D