Re: Adding presubj files for all KDE packages
On Tue, 26 May 09 10:00, Modestas Vainius wrote: Hello, On 2009 m. May 26 d., Tuesday 05:44:25 Armin Berres wrote: with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have no Bugsqad) and tell people immediately to take this upstream? I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g. on d...@l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in fact it is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever. Who thinks it is rude, (s)he can join our team and do a better job (but they won't). The main difference is that KDE is not a small package and most vocal developers on d...@l.d.o have no idea what it is like to maintain a huge pile of software which you hardly use 1/3rd yourself (I base my opinion on discussion about copyright files). It is either: 1) let user know what is typically going to happen with his/her bug (i.e. nothing). If we continue with tagging 'upstream', we do a pretty good job separating wasted bugs from useful ones and it is already an improvement. 2) forget/ignore bugs like we did before. BTS continues to become useless. IMHO, 1st is a better option. As for presubj, we only have a handful of people reporting upstream bugs to Debian BTS. Once they all get a template reply at least once, it is high probability they won't report such bugs again (or think good about it before reporting). So eventually such presubj's won't be needed. In case anything wonders what the status is: We started to tag (mostly) all incoming upstream bugs as those and were begging the submitter to resubmit upstream. Some of the bugs have been resubmitted upstream, so this can be considered to be a success. No one really complained and when there were complaints people understood our position after a further explanation. Greetings, Armin -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Adding presubj files for all KDE packages
Hello, On 2009 m. May 26 d., Tuesday 05:44:25 Armin Berres wrote: with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have no Bugsqad) and tell people immediately to take this upstream? I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g. on d...@l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in fact it is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever. Who thinks it is rude, (s)he can join our team and do a better job (but they won't). The main difference is that KDE is not a small package and most vocal developers on d...@l.d.o have no idea what it is like to maintain a huge pile of software which you hardly use 1/3rd yourself (I base my opinion on discussion about copyright files). It is either: 1) let user know what is typically going to happen with his/her bug (i.e. nothing). If we continue with tagging 'upstream', we do a pretty good job separating wasted bugs from useful ones and it is already an improvement. 2) forget/ignore bugs like we did before. BTS continues to become useless. IMHO, 1st is a better option. As for presubj, we only have a handful of people reporting upstream bugs to Debian BTS. Once they all get a template reply at least once, it is high probability they won't report such bugs again (or think good about it before reporting). So eventually such presubj's won't be needed. -- Modestas Vainius geroma...@mailas.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Adding presubj files for all KDE packages
On Tue, 19 May 09 20:41, trig...@space-based.de wrote: What do you think? So, no feedback here so far, we are really more IRC than mailinglist users. What I understand so far is, that installing presubj files for all packages is not an option, because e.g. people get used to simply ignore the presubj messages. The question is, if presubj files should be installed for packages which create a lot of reports like Konqueror, Kmail, Akreator, Plasma... These days people started to tag all upstream bugs as those and reply with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have no Bugsqad) and tell people immediately to take this upstream? I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g. on d...@l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in fact it is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever. So, can we agree on something official? The default template-solution has my vote FWIW... Greetings, Armin -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Adding presubj files for all KDE packages
On Lun 25 May 2009 23:44:25 Armin Berres escribió: On Tue, 19 May 09 20:41, trig...@space-based.de wrote: What do you think? So, no feedback here so far, we are really more IRC than mailinglist users. What I understand so far is, that installing presubj files for all packages is not an option, because e.g. people get used to simply ignore the presubj messages. The question is, if presubj files should be installed for packages which create a lot of reports like Konqueror, Kmail, Akreator, Plasma... These days people started to tag all upstream bugs as those and reply with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have no Bugsqad) and tell people immediately to take this upstream? I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g. on d...@l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in fact it is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever. So, can we agree on something official? The default template-solution has my vote FWIW... From my humble and inexperienced POV, it's better to tell the users that they _can_ forward the bug upstream than let their bug be forgotten in our BT. In my case, as a junior job, I am trying to take care mainly of Kopete bugs (not package related, but I hope that will change someday). I will read them from time to time and forward those that need to, but if the user him/herself has done that, the better. I think in this way we gain from at least two sides: the users can learn, understand and become more useful in the software life span and we can focus in Debian's bugs. Or packaging new versions :-) So, it may be rude in the begging, but more useful in the end... and my vote goes to make it official. Regards, Lisandro. -- “If you want to finish university, you should take care about getting on with the teachers. The result are submissive citizens that won’t face authority even if they know they’re right, in order to avoid problems“ Miriam Ruiz, http://www.miriamruiz.es/weblog/?p=187 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
