1 |
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:19:47 -0400 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Michael Palimaka |
5 |
> <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > At what point do we draw the line? Today my mailbox is full of |
7 |
> > email with changes like "app-foo/bar-1.2.3: version bump" -> |
8 |
> > "app-foo/bar-1.7.3 - Version bump.", changing keywords on years-old |
9 |
> > bugs etc. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Jer - can you comment on how these changes are getting made? Is this |
12 |
> some kind of script, or are you manually making these changes? |
13 |
|
14 |
Two things here need to be clarified: |
15 |
|
16 |
1. It's not Jer that is solely making changes here. |
17 |
|
18 |
2. The changes being discussed are not solely Jer's changes; also, |
19 |
the opposite applies as well, Jer doesn't do all these changes. |
20 |
|
21 |
So, what was quoted is somewhat a mixture of changes happening; and the |
22 |
problem with discussing this mixture, is that it covers more than what |
23 |
this thread is actually about. Let us try to avoid false impressions. |
24 |
|
25 |
I do all of these changes when I do bug wrangling work (on b-w@g.o |
26 |
assigned mails) or bugs on packages that I maintain (with not too big |
27 |
herds), but I would never do them on packages that I don't maintain. |
28 |
|
29 |
So, just to be clear, not all the quoted changes are done in that last |
30 |
case; and I would like us to focus on the changes that are, as to avoid |
31 |
people that are not involved to assume things that did not happen. |
32 |
|
33 |
> Either way, could you consider adjusting your practice so that if the |
34 |
> only change is to add a period or other trivial modification that you |
35 |
> avoid it for the moment? |
36 |
|
37 |
Example of the above text, I haven't seen such modifications happen in |
38 |
the case of someone editing a package that that person doesn't maintain. |
39 |
|
40 |
> Additionally, can anybody who knows more about bugzilla comment on how |
41 |
> easy it would be to have some way to mark modifications as trivial, |
42 |
> and take this into account in the bugspam? Either make it |
43 |
> configurable as to whether users get trivial bugspam (ideally), or at |
44 |
> least stick something in the headers that can be filtered on. |
45 |
|
46 |
There has been a discussion on this, I don't recall where it was held |
47 |
though; whereas the changes itself can be easily patched, the problem |
48 |
here rather has to do with the monitoring of those changes. |
49 |
|
50 |
Currently the approach is being used where you see all that what |
51 |
happens; if you introduce a trivial checkbox, you get the same effect |
52 |
as with Wikipedia and you need to have some means to check through |
53 |
those changes or otherwise behavior that's not encouraged could be |
54 |
happening low profile. |
55 |
|
56 |
I'm quite sure we are all fine and wouldn't do such thing; but a new |
57 |
developer or editpriv user might be unaware of the particular use case |
58 |
the feature was introduced for and therefore might misuse it, we |
59 |
don't want that to happen unnoticed. Which makes me think... |
60 |
|
61 |
What if we could introduce this in a restricted way? |
62 |
|
63 |
Perhaps only allow bug wranglers (and comrel, admins, ...) to use it? |
64 |
|
65 |
If the feature is rather limited, it becomes much more maintainable in |
66 |
terms of checking the changes that happened there; and because it is |
67 |
only given to a small group that is aware of how to use it conform to |
68 |
consensus, it avoids any unintended or unaware misuse by design. |
69 |
|
70 |
-- |
71 |
With kind regards, |
72 |
|
73 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
74 |
Gentoo Developer |
75 |
|
76 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
77 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
78 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |