1 |
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC) |
2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Pacho Ramos posted on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:05:34 +0200 as excerpted: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > El mié, 08-09-2010 a las 01:44 +0400, dev-random@××××.ru escribió: |
7 |
> >> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 09:30:34PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
8 |
> >> > This implies that the upstream is alive enough to fix it. |
9 |
> >> > |
10 |
> >> > I feel it should mean that the bug has been reported to upstream, and |
11 |
> >> > that state is documented in the bug. |
12 |
> >> > |
13 |
> >> > If we keep every upstream bug open instead of closed, we'd have |
14 |
> >> > probably another 2500 open bugs (5312 RESO/UPSTREAM in the history of |
15 |
> >> > Gentoo, and I'm ballparking that 50% aren't actually fixed yet |
16 |
> >> > upstream). |
17 |
> >> |
18 |
> >> Bug may be a blocker. And marking it as RESOLVED/UPSTREAM you may |
19 |
> >> unblock another bug (e.g. stabilization request) which should be still |
20 |
> >> blocked because there is no fixed package in tree. |
21 |
> >> |
22 |
> >> |
23 |
> > In most cases when it's really a blocker, bug will remain opened anyway |
24 |
> > until solved or, if not possible, stabilization will be postponed. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Additionally, RESOLVED/UPSTREAM indicates that the Gentoo package |
27 |
> maintainer (or other dev who marked it such) believes Gentoo is not the |
28 |
> appropriate place for a patch fixing the problem. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> As such, the bug will never be fixed at the Gentoo level, only upstream, |
31 |
> and if there's a blocker on it, the blocker would never get resolved |
32 |
> either, until upstream fixes it. Where upstream isn't active or doesn't |
33 |
> believe the fix appropriate either, that'd lead to stalemate and forever |
34 |
> blocking the dependent Gentoo bug. That's not appropriate either. |
35 |
|
36 |
Sure it is. That's what a blocker is. The bug isn't fixed. How can the |
37 |
action requiring that the bug be fixed to happen take place? |
38 |
|
39 |
What isn't appropriate is resolving bugs blocking other bugs as RESO/UPSTREAM |
40 |
in the first place. It basically takes us out of the loop. Even if the bug |
41 |
might be fixed better upstream, the bug report in which this is determined |
42 |
should not be closed until the bug is fixed in Gentoo. It becomes the |
43 |
tracker of the upstream progress of the bug, and the later reintegration of |
44 |
the solution back into Gentoo. That is, after all, what the dependency bug |
45 |
is concerned with. |
46 |
|
47 |
> So RESOLVED/UPSTREAM *should* unblock blockers, even where upstream |
48 |
> doesn't resolve, or we've simply created a deadlock that's not going to be |
49 |
> resolved. If it's truly a blocker, the problem will need worked around |
50 |
> some other way. But often, "blockers" really aren't blockers, when |
51 |
> upstream chooses not to take the package in that direction after all. It |
52 |
> simply means some other alternative, perhaps an alternative package, must |
53 |
> be developed instead, and the package as it is can continue to evolve in |
54 |
> the normal way. |
55 |
|
56 |
No. Here's my scenario. gcc-porting creates a tracker bug everytime GCC |
57 |
trunk hits stage 3 for the upcoming version where all packages with build |
58 |
errors get added as blockers. |
59 |
|
60 |
In the early throes of this process, where many packagers |
61 |
(understandably) couldn't give two shits about a GCC version that they've |
62 |
never heard of I get many bugs closed as RESO/INVALID or RESO/UPSTREAM. This |
63 |
encompasses the "not my problem, take it upstream" definition of |
64 |
RESO/UPSTREAM, and I respect this. Meanwhile the package is still broken and |
65 |
while the patches I have do go upstream, I have no way of tracking when these |
66 |
fixes get into Gentoo without personally and obsessively tracking their |
67 |
individual progress, which, sadly, I do (see the gcc-porting overlay). |
68 |
|
69 |
Later as release approaches and people are more amenable, I sometimes get the |
70 |
"I sent this upstream, they've applied it" RESO/UPSTREAM. Again, this doesn't |
71 |
help us. The Gentoo package is still broken. These I just reopen with a note |
72 |
saying close it when the fix reaches portage, generally because at this point |
73 |
I'm too burnt out by stage 1 above. |
74 |
|
75 |
At release time we always get a few high profile projects shun the new |
76 |
release for breaking their favorite feature and decree on high they will not |
77 |
support it. RESO/UPSTREAM seems designed for these types of bugs, surely we |
78 |
can use it here! Nope. It's still broken. We judge how ready we are to |
79 |
unmask new major compiler releases by looking at how many _open_ bugs there |
80 |
are on the tracker. If these types of high-profile bugs are RESO/UPSTREAM, |
81 |
they will probably get overlooked, like I almost missed emacs (twice!) |
82 |
earlier in the 4.5 cycle. |
83 |
|
84 |
The point is, no matter how you interpret it, RESO/UPSTREAM is never a good |
85 |
idea for bugs blocking others. |
86 |
|
87 |
I have no problem how you use it outside that context. |
88 |
|
89 |
-- |
90 |
fonts, gcc-porting, we hold our breath, we spin around the world |
91 |
toolchain, wxwidgets you and me cling to the outside of the earth |
92 |
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |