1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
R Hill wrote: |
5 |
> a) what would be the point of the reporter also being the verifier as |
6 |
> far as confirming that the bug is real and not a PEBKAC error? |
7 |
|
8 |
Sometimes devs do clever things to their systems that end-users aren't |
9 |
aware of, or they test the fix logged into their machine with special |
10 |
priviledges, etc. So having the reporter verify would test the fix with |
11 |
those things out of the loop. |
12 |
|
13 |
> b) what would be the point of requiring that verification be done by a |
14 |
> third party if the dev the PR is assigned to can reproduce the bug |
15 |
> themselves? |
16 |
|
17 |
I'm assuming that this would only apply to cases where the dev has |
18 |
provided a fix (in most cases I assume they would have reproduced the |
19 |
problem). The reporter's test would have the benefits mentioned above, |
20 |
and if the Team Lead tested, they could review the fix for technical |
21 |
correctness, etc. |
22 |
|
23 |
> c) how do you propose the assignee fix the bug if they cannot reproduce |
24 |
> it? this may be possible in some cases, but not anywhere near the |
25 |
> majority. |
26 |
|
27 |
My suggestion doesn't even cover that; it assumes that the dev has |
28 |
provided a fix. |
29 |
|
30 |
> d) team leads lead the team, not attempt to reproduce bugs for every PR |
31 |
> that falls under their umbrella. to be blunt, they have much better |
32 |
> things to do. |
33 |
|
34 |
Is it out of the scope of the Team Lead to check that [his|her] devs are |
35 |
fixing things in a technically correct manner? From the "Gentoo |
36 |
Developer Handbook": |
37 |
|
38 |
"Team leads are responsible for organizing the developer in their team |
39 |
and coordinating releases and also resolving issues within the team, as |
40 |
well as improving products on the basis of feedback from the community." |
41 |
|
42 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=1&chap=5 |
43 |
|
44 |
I think a bug report qualifies as feedback from the community and |
45 |
verifying that a bug fix actually works would qualify as improving products. |
46 |
|
47 |
> Dear Nathan, |
48 |
> |
49 |
> In your spare time, could you please begin testing every new problem |
50 |
> report filed as of now for validity and tag them appropriately? This |
51 |
> small, incremental move should greatly improve our QA process. Thanks boo. |
52 |
|
53 |
Again, my suggestion attempts to improve the process farther down |
54 |
stream; the problem of validating new bugs and tagging them |
55 |
appropriately is a separate matter. |
56 |
|
57 |
Also, suggesting that I do all the work is silly. It suggests, to me at |
58 |
least, that you can't find anything wrong with what I'm suggesting, but |
59 |
for some reason or another you're unwilling to change your working |
60 |
habits. So you throw up the "if its such a good idea, you do it... ALL |
61 |
of it!" nonsense. Obviously, no process (including the current Gentoo |
62 |
bugzilla process being used daily) will work without participation from |
63 |
most of the people involved. There will *always* be people who disagree, |
64 |
and there will *always* be people who skirt the system in some way. |
65 |
That's just life. |
66 |
|
67 |
> Note: I am not denying there could be a (small) policy problem, I'm just |
68 |
> pointing out that the proposed solution is unworkable. |
69 |
|
70 |
Great! Can you think of any ways to make my idea workable? What about a |
71 |
completely different solution? |
72 |
|
73 |
To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be |
74 |
verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done. |
75 |
|
76 |
Nathan |
77 |
|
78 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
79 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
80 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
81 |
|
82 |
iD8DBQFC0Sdc2QTTR4CNEQARAsh+AJ93PRmC0JLJlBNV3kSbFlKR2vOkOgCdEpvq |
83 |
2SVJFg/G2B0sb8CXTstOGEY= |
84 |
=CAPL |
85 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
86 |
-- |
87 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |