| 1 |
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:26:13 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <chainsaw@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 01:16 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 5 |
> > 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If it is for software where I am also upstream (Audacious for |
| 8 |
> example), it does tend to annoy me when people try their utmost to |
| 9 |
> file bug reports before I commit my ebuild. (I have yet to miss a |
| 10 |
> release by more then 6 hours) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early |
| 13 |
> > version bump requests? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> For things like the nVidia drivers I do welcome it. The time I can |
| 16 |
> spend trawling upstream sites for new releases is limited. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Just an idea: |
| 19 |
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump |
| 20 |
> requests are welcome? It's more of an individual developer |
| 21 |
> preference, but that seems the right place for it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Its' half an idea, in my opinion. We need a process, not just a tag in a |
| 24 |
file. The tag in the file would tell us how a bug should perhaps be |
| 25 |
treated, and metadata.xml is an excellent place to concentrate such |
| 26 |
information, but to tell a bug wrangler (or anyone else) to "do nothing |
| 27 |
for X units of time" isn't going to work. As for what the tag might |
| 28 |
tell us, I think leaving bugs on hold for a few days is not the right |
| 29 |
approach - users (as well as, say, fellow developers and upstreams) |
| 30 |
shouldn't have to "artificially" wait to make their release |
| 31 |
announcements and bug wranglers shouldn't be expected to keep these |
| 32 |
bugs on their own lists in some artificial sense - it just means more |
| 33 |
work for everyone and more delay in communications between users and |
| 34 |
developers. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I am currently thinking of making a very broad division between |
| 37 |
bump requests for more or less "independent" packages on the one hand, |
| 38 |
and packages that (clearly) belong to a suite (KDE and GNOME are good |
| 39 |
examples, although the latter team "owns" quite a few independantly |
| 40 |
useable packages) or to wildly popular packages that announces releases |
| 41 |
weeks to months ahead (Mozilla). |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I personally think that bump requests of the "KDE 5 OMG" and "WHEREIS |
| 44 |
FF4?" kind are to be RESOLVED as LATER forthwith. That saves a lot of |
| 45 |
dupe checking as well! :) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Kind regards, |
| 49 |
JeR |
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives