1 |
Eric G Ortego wrote: |
2 |
> How about gentoo-stats? Im not familiar with the project but maybe it |
3 |
> could be used to correlate users using package x marked ~arch to to |
4 |
> the number of bug reports on x and packages that depend on x ? |
5 |
|
6 |
I'd love to see gentoo-stats revitalized, and if possible I'd lend a |
7 |
hand to the best of my abilities. Unfortunately I've too much on my |
8 |
plate to try to organize a new project, but I'm sure I can contribute |
9 |
something, if even only stats reporting from a dozen different Gentoo boxes. |
10 |
|
11 |
> When I have been using a package in my overlay successfully for some |
12 |
> time, I could do a genlop -t package-name file a bug report then leave |
13 |
> it to the devs, but the Im not sure how well that works as I have yet to |
14 |
> see many|any of my reports cause a change in the portage tree. |
15 |
|
16 |
I'm personally glad when (if) people submit "Works for me!" and |
17 |
"Stable!" reports. It's better than the old "no news is good news" |
18 |
approach to marking packages stable. If more users added a "WFM" comment |
19 |
to new ebuild bugs it'd go a long way to keeping our arch profile on the |
20 |
bleeding edge - safely. :> |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
Stewart Honsberger - http://blackdeath.snerk.org/ |
24 |
To teach is to learn twice. |
25 |
-- Joseph Joubert |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |