1 |
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:29:19 +0100 |
2 |
Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Am 15.01.2014 04:11, schrieb Tom Wijsman: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > More discussion is needed before we should add this; at least I |
7 |
> > think it should be brought up during the meeting this Sunday, |
8 |
> > because we've barely had feedback and at least one suggestion |
9 |
> > doesn't appear discussed and/or incorporated. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I send the first mail with this wording 8 days ago. Enough time to |
12 |
> comment on it. I'd prefer to discuss it on the list. |
13 |
|
14 |
Yes, but not all comments were discussed yet, therefore (dis)agreement |
15 |
on them is missing; and this last thing rather became a topic of |
16 |
discussion due to the work clashes that we saw happen twice. |
17 |
|
18 |
> >> +There always exists a tracker bug, named: |
19 |
> >> +"[Tracker] sys-apps/portage-<next version>". |
20 |
> >> + |
21 |
> >> +This bug is renamed from X.Y.Z to X.Y.Z+1 after a release, until |
22 |
> >> +it gets closed when Y changes and a new one is opened. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > While this spares out on tracker bugs, we lose the ability to track |
25 |
> > which bugs were fixed in which version, |
26 |
> |
27 |
> That's not true. Just look at the tracker for 2.2.9. Between the |
28 |
> renames of the tracker you'll see which bug has been marked as |
29 |
> blocking. These are the fixed ones. |
30 |
|
31 |
Good point, thanks; a small problem is when bugs get reopened, but I |
32 |
suppose this wouldn't happen too often to be a big problem. |
33 |
|
34 |
> unless we enforce that all bug |
35 |
> > numbers get to be listed in the ChangeLog; do we have a policy for |
36 |
> > that? |
37 |
> |
38 |
> The numbers go into the ebuild changelog, but I don't think that's |
39 |
> written down somewhere (/me looks at dol-sen). |
40 |
|
41 |
Yes, I see some commit messages not refer to bugs which is something we |
42 |
will want to avoid; think this might need to go into the commit policy. |
43 |
|
44 |
> >> +For individual open bugs it is encouraged to set UNCONFIRMED, |
45 |
> >> +CONFIRMED or IN_PROGESS as appropriate. |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > What is "as appropriate"? As I mentioned, this needs more |
48 |
> > discussion; please keep this the way it was, it makes the tracker |
49 |
> > bug more useful. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> The "way it was" is to not care about them at all. There was no |
52 |
> agreement on the the other thread if these things should be used or |
53 |
> not. So I left it vague so everyone could use it, but they are not |
54 |
> forced to. |
55 |
|
56 |
Hmm, could this result in conflicting usage of these? |
57 |
|
58 |
The "way it was" means the way the previous Portage team did it. |
59 |
|
60 |
Being able to see IN_PROGRESS when it is in VCS on the tracker is |
61 |
really handy, as that avoids skipping bugs; for those that deem that |
62 |
mouse-over is unhandy, an alternative way is to see the open list is: |
63 |
|
64 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=blocked%3A484436 |
65 |
|
66 |
> >> +There are a number of bugs named "[TRACKER] *" that collect bugs |
67 |
> >> +for specific topics. Confirmed bugs should be marked as blocking |
68 |
> >> +these tracker bugs if appropriate. |
69 |
> > |
70 |
> > For clarity, it should be mentioned that this does not mean to block |
71 |
> > the tracker for the next version; this could be misinterpreted. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> Considering that the tracker gets renamed, I'm not sure what you mean |
74 |
> here. |
75 |
|
76 |
As you are confused yourself by misinterpreting what you have written, |
77 |
you demonstrate the case for the need of clarity here; this is not |
78 |
about the next version tracker or it being renamed at all, it's about |
79 |
all other trackers that are not version trackers. The part of the |
80 |
policy quoted here doesn't make that clear, it had me puzzling for a |
81 |
moment too when I first read that; I think you were puzzled too now... |
82 |
|
83 |
-- |
84 |
With kind regards, |
85 |
|
86 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
87 |
Gentoo Developer |
88 |
|
89 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
90 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
91 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |