Re: [gentoo-dev] CVS and non-devs (again!)

[Spider]

begin  quote
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:34:05 +0100
John Nilsson <john@×××××××.nu> wrote:

> I do belive that the issue tracking system is flawed if these kind of
> bug-reports is a problem though...
> If all bugs was attached to a specific ebuild, this wouldn't be
> problem would it?


*cough*

No.  It would be an even worse problem.

take a bug like this :
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38835

in this case it was simple to detect, just for me to check out the
latest tree, scan versions and compare to information given.

However, as seen here, its not an easy thing for users to know what
causes a problem, if it is a library subdependency or something else.
This is even worse when some testing library breaks interfaces, and then
they install it, together with the updated development set that matches,
and then -downgrade- again, however, parts are still linking to the old
one, using the new interface, that one is rebuilt afterwards, and you
are left with library mismatch and symbol relocation errors because of
the changing interfaces.

Yes, I've tried to debug such cases for users, who technically are
correct, they don't have any "development" stuff installed anymore. 
That doesn't matter, their system is still borked when it comes to that
library and all things inheriting.  Causing developers a real pain.


So, attaching all bugs to the single place of failure wíll obscure
matters even worse. inviting people to a testing/bleeding edge tree
managed by users will give us a severe headache.


//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end