1 |
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:12 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
5 |
> > > > Many users seem to think |
6 |
> > > > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the |
7 |
> > > > most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't |
8 |
> > > > be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are |
9 |
> > > > not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case. |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > But if a developer tells them what is wrong and to reopen the bug when |
12 |
> > > they've fixed it, it shouldn't be a problem. And that's what I've seen |
13 |
> > > in this case. |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > I think you all misunderstand MY position on this. I provided ebuilds in |
17 |
> > the hope it would save the maintainers time and effort. If the work I |
18 |
> > did is 90% to spec, then there really is no reason for the maintainer |
19 |
> > NOT to take it, tweak it, and maybe send a note or add a comment to the |
20 |
> > bug as to what was fixed. It would ensure two things: 1) that the user |
21 |
> > will (hopefully) not make the same mistake again, and 2) get the ebuild |
22 |
> > upstream quicker. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > Sending it back to the contributor only will waste more time. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> |
27 |
> You will get exactly the same effect if you were to send a patch to LKML |
28 |
> to fix or improve some or other part of the kernel, and either the |
29 |
> coding style, or the way it is fixed is not to Linus or the specific |
30 |
> subsystem maintainer's liking. |
31 |
|
32 |
Listen, if all you want is perfection, you will find users won't want to |
33 |
contribute anymore. All you're accomplishing is wasting time. User |
34 |
submits enhancement as per: |
35 |
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ebuild-submit.xml . Nothing in that |
36 |
document talks about having to be perfect. It even allows for users to |
37 |
say "hey, there is a new version out." But know. The ebuild attack dogs |
38 |
slap a WONTFIX/RESOLVED tag on an app. So, instead of an enhancement in |
39 |
the pipeline, we have several dead bugs. Not contructive IMHO. |
40 |
|
41 |
> |
42 |
> The general idea is that if somebody want to get involved, they should |
43 |
> be prepared to to take the time to learn how to do fairly decent |
44 |
> patches/whatever. This makes review easier, and also minimises the |
45 |
> workload on whatever maintainer. |
46 |
> |
47 |
I think you need to rethink that. Notifying a maintainer that there is |
48 |
an update or new add on to an existing project is not really getting |
49 |
involved. It's HELPING. I realize that maintainers cannot stay on top of |
50 |
all 120,000 packages. That's where the everyday users come in. They, |
51 |
selfishly, monitor THEIR pet applications. When something slips, they |
52 |
report it via bugzilla. If the everyday users stop contributing these |
53 |
notifications, your distro is SOL. |
54 |
|
55 |
My mistake was trying to be helpful and submitting ebuilds. Instead of |
56 |
being construed as helping, some of you perceived I was angling for a |
57 |
dev position. Why DO you have over 600 maintainer-wanted ebuilds? You |
58 |
should look into that. Could it be that 600 people who submitted an idea |
59 |
were intimidated or put off? |
60 |
|
61 |
What I WOULD like to know is: |
62 |
|
63 |
1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius? |
64 |
2) Who is maintaining ROX and what's going to be done about it. |
65 |
|
66 |
Really, I don't want this thread to become a philosophical discussion on |
67 |
ebuild submission policy. You know my frustration. As a user, I just |
68 |
want to see the ROX package group updated as I noted on my first message |
69 |
and in the associated bug reports. How this devolved into this name |
70 |
calling argument over what is just criticism and ebuild style is |
71 |
completely OT and avoids the issue of the two questions above. |
72 |
|
73 |
So, please just answer the above two questions, and we can end this |
74 |
thread. If philosophy is desired, then start a new one. I just want to |
75 |
know about ROX now. |
76 |
-- |
77 |
Peter |
78 |
|
79 |
-- |
80 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |