1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
3 |
|
4 |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
|
5 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote:
|
6 |
|
7 |
> Hi fellow developers, |
8 |
> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> it seems I've run into a minor issue with fellow bug wrangler carlo |
11 |
> (who has been putting a lot of work into that, for which we should all |
12 |
> be grateful). |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Carsten has a cut-and-paste message that he posts in comments to |
15 |
> version bump bug reports that he finds have been filed on the day the |
16 |
> software version in question was released/announced. The gist of the |
17 |
> message is that none of or most ebuild developers do not like these |
18 |
> "0-day requests" and that users (and developers) should refrain from |
19 |
> filing them on the same day. Waiting a week would be OK, the message |
20 |
> seems to say. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Being an ebuild developer myself, I have to say that I do not hold that |
23 |
> stance and that I welcome early version bump requests. Therefore, I |
24 |
> refrain from adding such messages to the bugs that I wrangle and indeed |
25 |
> welcome any bump requests[1]. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Finding myself in conflict with someone I have come to share a certain |
28 |
> workload with, notably someone who has a few more years of Gentoo |
29 |
> experience, I wonder what the majority of our ebuild developers |
30 |
> actually think. In that spirit, I hope the following questions are |
31 |
> neutral enough for everyone to *not* start a flamewar over this. :) |
32 |
> |
33 |
> |
34 |
> ----- |
35 |
> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request? |
36 |
> |
37 |
Speaking only for myself as an arch developer.
|
38 |
|
39 |
It depends on the reason. For example, recently there was a day 0
|
40 |
request for a freetype (I believe) stable request because current
|
41 |
stable didn't work is some such. That sort of thing is OK. Obviously
|
42 |
security bugs require quick processing. New keyword/re-keyword
|
43 |
requests are OK (but then of course we don't go stable).
|
44 |
|
45 |
Otherwise, we will put the package into the normal cycle whenever it
|
46 |
enters the tree.
|
47 |
|
48 |
> |
49 |
> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early |
50 |
> version bump requests? |
51 |
> |
52 |
> |
53 |
Makes no difference to me, but I am not a package maintainer. I am
|
54 |
speaking from an arch point of view. We only ask that the package
|
55 |
maintainer make sure it at least seems to work before they bump the
|
56 |
version.
|
57 |
|
58 |
(It's different when the new version is not compatible with the current
|
59 |
version, but that's off topic for this thread, I think. I don't ever
|
60 |
want to see that sort of thing.)
|
61 |
|
62 |
> ----- |
63 |
> |
64 |
> I know, it's not a particularly good survey, but I hope the plenty and |
65 |
> diversity of your answers will shed more light on the matter. :) |
66 |
> |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Thank you and kind regards, |
69 |
> JeR |
70 |
> |
71 |
> |
72 |
> [1] In fact I regularly use the opportunity to check on the HOMEPAGE |
73 |
> whether the release was security related, and I assign directly to |
74 |
> security@ when that is the case (CC'ing the package's maintainers) and |
75 |
> perhaps pasting ChangeLog or advisory info in a comment. |
76 |
> -- |
77 |
> gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
78 |
> |
79 |
|
80 |
I doubt that this addresses what you are asking, but in case it is
|
81 |
useful,
|
82 |
Regards,
|
83 |
Ferris
|
84 |
- --
|
85 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
|
86 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
|
87 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
88 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
|
89 |
|
90 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkht270ACgkQQa6M3+I///edXwCfTPiTZ56Aw9ViJRs8hJTm8DrQ
|
91 |
7g4An1NdsU/hLteSFLmxT47eeWDEGehm
|
92 |
=62NW
|
93 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |