1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
5 |
> Hi fellow developers, |
6 |
> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> it seems I've run into a minor issue with fellow bug wrangler carlo |
9 |
> (who has been putting a lot of work into that, for which we should all |
10 |
> be grateful). |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Carsten has a cut-and-paste message that he posts in comments to |
13 |
> version bump bug reports that he finds have been filed on the day the |
14 |
> software version in question was released/announced. The gist of the |
15 |
> message is that none of or most ebuild developers do not like these |
16 |
> "0-day requests" and that users (and developers) should refrain from |
17 |
> filing them on the same day. Waiting a week would be OK, the message |
18 |
> seems to say. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Being an ebuild developer myself, I have to say that I do not hold that |
21 |
> stance and that I welcome early version bump requests. Therefore, I |
22 |
> refrain from adding such messages to the bugs that I wrangle and indeed |
23 |
> welcome any bump requests[1]. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Finding myself in conflict with someone I have come to share a certain |
26 |
> workload with, notably someone who has a few more years of Gentoo |
27 |
> experience, I wonder what the majority of our ebuild developers |
28 |
> actually think. In that spirit, I hope the following questions are |
29 |
> neutral enough for everyone to *not* start a flamewar over this. :) |
30 |
> |
31 |
> |
32 |
> ----- |
33 |
> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request? |
34 |
|
35 |
Since current mores make sure there are not so many, I don't mind them. |
36 |
|
37 |
> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early |
38 |
> version bump requests? |
39 |
|
40 |
To prevent every package from getting a 0-day bump request, I'd say give it a |
41 |
day or two at least, unless you have some info other than that there is a new |
42 |
version. For example that the current ebuild still works with the new version or |
43 |
that it doesn't. It helps with gauging which bumps are trivial and which aren't. |
44 |
|
45 |
If someone only wants to tell me some new version is out, I prefer they ping me |
46 |
on irc. |
47 |
|
48 |
> ----- |
49 |
> |
50 |
> I know, it's not a particularly good survey, but I hope the plenty and |
51 |
> diversity of your answers will shed more light on the matter. :) |
52 |
> |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Thank you and kind regards, |
55 |
> JeR |
56 |
> |
57 |
> |
58 |
> [1] In fact I regularly use the opportunity to check on the HOMEPAGE |
59 |
> whether the release was security related, and I assign directly to |
60 |
> security@ when that is the case (CC'ing the package's maintainers) and |
61 |
> perhaps pasting ChangeLog or advisory info in a comment. |
62 |
|
63 |
Marijn |
64 |
|
65 |
- -- |
66 |
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML |
67 |
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode |
68 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
69 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
70 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
71 |
|
72 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkht4WkACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xJ6QCfbX/IvrzARx3AY2FzAHW4sD2P |
73 |
TasAn2NTD0c+HE0ehaG3wd9bFdk+yzSh |
74 |
=pj1H |
75 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
76 |
-- |
77 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |