Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:32 PM, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote: > Le lundi 28 mars 2011 à 22:19 +0900, Angus a écrit : >> I use that when reporting bugs, but it doesn't seem to get my reports >> assigned to the relevant maintainer(s) any faster at all... > > You just forgot one thing: > Assigning automatically a bug to a maintainer does not mean the bug will > be fixed any faster. > > I can see now some of my bugs, assigned and fixed asap, while others are > assigned and linger on for quite some time. Because the maintainer does > not take any action. It entirely depends on the maintainer willingness. > This is especially true for [community] > > I don't want to point the finger at some maintainer here. I am trying to > make a point. > Separate and tangential topic. Automatic assignment, if it works, will save time (and more importantly won't lose time).
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
Le lundi 28 mars 2011 à 22:19 +0900, Angus a écrit : > I use that when reporting bugs, but it doesn't seem to get my reports > assigned to the relevant maintainer(s) any faster at all... You just forgot one thing: Assigning automatically a bug to a maintainer does not mean the bug will be fixed any faster. I can see now some of my bugs, assigned and fixed asap, while others are assigned and linger on for quite some time. Because the maintainer does not take any action. It entirely depends on the maintainer willingness. This is especially true for [community] I don't want to point the finger at some maintainer here. I am trying to make a point.
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > On 03/27/2011 05:16 AM, Angus wrote: >> >> When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I >> specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it >> possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and >> automatically notified of the report. >> > > you seem to be a regular bugzilla user. You can't specify a package because > we have a lot of them and somebody has to add them as a project and sucks(it > might be a limitation for flyspray) > > instead we chose to have some style but not everyone use it. > > [packagename] short description > >> The way it works now seems to be that I have to wait for some generic >> bug janitor to manually assign my report to the maintainer of the >> package (correct me if I'm mistaken). For example, I filed a bug >> report nearly two days ago, but apparently no janitor (or any other >> maintainer) has looked at it jet, which means all that time is wasted >> for hardly any reason (and no, I won't specify which bug. It's >> irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing here.) >> >> I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so >> maybe we can improve this system? > > only if we use bugzilla. Please don't. Perhaps the package web interface could have a special "Report Bug" which files a bug into flyspray and fills in some of the fields automatically: version, maintainer, proper title template etc. Sander
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:53:35 +0200, Cédric Girard wrote: Every task is not a bug. It could be a feature request or something else. Yep, and I get Ionuț Bîru's Bugzilla comparison now. -- Simon Perry (aka Pezz) [ s a n x i o n . n e t ]
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On 29 March 2011 00:40, Simon Perry wrote: > Which eludes to the original issue - instead of a wrangler, or team of > wranglers, who have to deal with everything, let users do the initial > assignment, then if it needs to go somewhere else, the team it's been > assigned to can throw it back to the "wranglers". Actually, I think the main purpose of not assigning by default is because the task has to be "confirmed" or validated prior to that. That is the job of the janitor - if the packager did not stumble upon it first.
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Simon Perry wrote: > Even though the button name makes no sense, I'll go back to lurking. Every task is not a bug. It could be a feature request or something else. -- Cédric Girard
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:18:14 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: There is no problem. What are you talking about? Anyone is free to mention in the report what package they think is related. Which eludes to the original issue - instead of a wrangler, or team of wranglers, who have to deal with everything, let users do the initial assignment, then if it needs to go somewhere else, the team it's been assigned to can throw it back to the "wranglers". I digress, I think... What information? You have a tracker, you know it's Flyspray, if you can file a feature request with at least a demonstrated logic if not a PHP patch. If it's easy to implement, we might do it. Else, you can go upstream. Now, let's not get into why we use Flyspray in the first place. You can ask the rest of the OSS world why they use what they use. I understand, but look, this is the first time I've ever commented on this list. Even though the button name makes no sense, I'll go back to lurking. -- Simon Perry (aka Pezz) [ s a n x i o n . n e t ]
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On 28 March 2011 21:19, Angus wrote: > But a script should be able to take care of this, no? Probably. Get the prefix and then just match against a db/text file of packages and respective maintainers. If no prefix or nothing found, then let the wrangler handle it (the assignment).
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On 28 March 2011 23:09, Simon Perry wrote: > I don't understand why people can't tell other people where they think the > bug is. They can! (with the prefix) > If it's not right, let the wrangler handle it. Correct. (edit the prefix) > I think if someone is prepared to even consider submitting a bug report in > an environment as intimidating as Arch, give them a go. > > Hell, I'm shit-scared about sending this e-mail. I don't quite get what you're talking about here :/ > I've had an account on bugs.archlinux.org for a while, I still can't even > see the "new bug" button, it doesn't exist as far as I can see. That is largely an issue of getting used to. If all software had the same UI... > I don't see why being able to say "this bug is in package X" is such a > problem, given that only the chosen people are able to create bugs in the > first place. There is no problem. What are you talking about? Anyone is free to mention in the report what package they think is related. > You always say you want people to help, but it seems so hard to do so, even > when the information you have is easy to convey. What information? You have a tracker, you know it's Flyspray, if you can file a feature request with at least a demonstrated logic if not a PHP patch. If it's easy to implement, we might do it. Else, you can go upstream. Now, let's not get into why we use Flyspray in the first place. You can ask the rest of the OSS world why they use what they use.
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:40:04 +0300, Ionuț Bîru wrote: the button is called "Add new task" I actually just spotted that. I'm not kidding -- "Hmm, let's see what Add New Task does". IT CREATES A NEW BUG REPORT. Let me say the magic words: I'm sorry. But.. "New Bug".. Nobody thought of that? -- Simon Perry (aka Pezz) [ s a n x i o n . n e t ]
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
Am 28.03.2011 17:09, schrieb Simon Perry: > I've had an account on bugs.archlinux.org for a while, I still can't > even see the "new bug" button, it doesn't exist as far as I can see. You might want to log in. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On 03/28/2011 06:38 PM, Simon Perry wrote: On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:21:46 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote: Btw in short, there is an RSS feed for new bugs. here is the feed for [community] https://bugs.archlinux.org/feed.php?feed_type=rss1&project=5 So there is no need for a special mailing list. That's great, but everyone has to keep an eye on everything, all of the time. I still don't know where the new bug button is. the button is called "Add new task" I still have no way of helping the hapless wrangler who has to monitor every single bug. -- Ionuț
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:21:46 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote: Btw in short, there is an RSS feed for new bugs. here is the feed for [community] https://bugs.archlinux.org/feed.php?feed_type=rss1&project=5 So there is no need for a special mailing list. That's great, but everyone has to keep an eye on everything, all of the time. I still don't know where the new bug button is. I still have no way of helping the hapless wrangler who has to monitor every single bug. -- Simon Perry (aka Pezz) [ s a n x i o n . n e t ]
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 02:09 +1100, Simon Perry wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:07:12 +0300, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > > > instead we chose to have some style but not everyone use it. > > I don't understand why people can't tell other people where they think > the bug is. > > If it's not right, let the wrangler handle it. > > I think if someone is prepared to even consider submitting a bug report > in an environment as intimidating as Arch, give them a go. > > Hell, I'm shit-scared about sending this e-mail. > > >> I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, > >> so > >> maybe we can improve this system? > > > > only if we use bugzilla. > > Sorry if I'm wrong-top-posting or whatever, I'm using Roundcube. > > I've had an account on bugs.archlinux.org for a while, I still can't > even see the "new bug" button, it doesn't exist as far as I can see. > > I don't see why being able to say "this bug is in package X" is such a > problem, given that only the chosen people are able to create bugs in > the first place. > > You always say you want people to help, but it seems so hard to do so, > even when the information you have is easy to convey. > Btw in short, there is an RSS feed for new bugs. here is the feed for [community] https://bugs.archlinux.org/feed.php?feed_type=rss1&project=5 So there is no need for a special mailing list. -- Jelle van der Waa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:07:12 +0300, Ionuț Bîru wrote: instead we chose to have some style but not everyone use it. I don't understand why people can't tell other people where they think the bug is. If it's not right, let the wrangler handle it. I think if someone is prepared to even consider submitting a bug report in an environment as intimidating as Arch, give them a go. Hell, I'm shit-scared about sending this e-mail. I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so maybe we can improve this system? only if we use bugzilla. Sorry if I'm wrong-top-posting or whatever, I'm using Roundcube. I've had an account on bugs.archlinux.org for a while, I still can't even see the "new bug" button, it doesn't exist as far as I can see. I don't see why being able to say "this bug is in package X" is such a problem, given that only the chosen people are able to create bugs in the first place. You always say you want people to help, but it seems so hard to do so, even when the information you have is easy to convey. -- Simon Perry (aka Pezz) [ s a n x i o n . n e t ]
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: > Angus wrote: >> >> But a script should be able to take care of this, no? >> > > Doesn't a script solve everything? > Here is Arch's customized flyspray: > http://projects.archlinux.org/vhosts/bugs.archlinux.org.git Thanks. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with php (I've always found it a bit too stinky stinky for my taste). If Arch would use Roundup or something else python based I could probably hack it though... > You guessed it, its because the maintainer has to become aware of the > bug report. Which usually means someone should assign it to him :) Again, I'm saying there should be a straightforward option for the user to do that him/herself when filing the bug report. This I think applies especially to a community like Arch, where there are many packages (and thus bugs) to manage and users tend to be somewhat less clueless then in most other communities. If flyspray can't be fixed to include this basic functionality, perhaps replacing it with something else would be a good idea?
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
Angus wrote: > > But a script should be able to take care of this, no? > Doesn't a script solve everything? Here is Arch's customized flyspray: http://projects.archlinux.org/vhosts/bugs.archlinux.org.git >> instead we chose to have some style but not everyone use it. >> >> [packagename] short description > > I use that when reporting bugs, but it doesn't seem to get my reports > assigned to the relevant maintainer(s) any faster at all... > You guessed it, its because the maintainer has to become aware of the bug report. Which usually means someone should assign it to him :) Greg
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > On 03/27/2011 05:16 AM, Angus wrote: >> >> When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I >> specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it >> possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and >> automatically notified of the report. >> > > you seem to be a regular bugzilla user. You can't specify a package because > we have a lot of them and somebody has to add them as a project and sucks(it > might be a limitation for flyspray) But a script should be able to take care of this, no? > instead we chose to have some style but not everyone use it. > > [packagename] short description I use that when reporting bugs, but it doesn't seem to get my reports assigned to the relevant maintainer(s) any faster at all...
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: > Angus wrote: >>> When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I >>> specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it >>> possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and >>> automatically notified of the report. >>> >>> The way it works now seems to be that I have to wait for some generic >>> bug janitor to manually assign my report to the maintainer of the >>> package (correct me if I'm mistaken). For example, I filed a bug >>> report nearly two days ago, but apparently no janitor (or any other >>> maintainer) has looked at it jet, which means all that time is wasted >>> for hardly any reason (and no, I won't specify which bug. It's >>> irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing here.) >>> >>> I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so >>> maybe we can improve this system? >> >> >> ...come on, not even a single flame or a "+1"? -_-; >> > > I think job description no.1 fits you perfectly. You seem to have what > it takes. :) > http://www.archlinux.org/news/contributors-wanted Uh huh, that's great, but the point I tried to make is that these janitors (or "Bug Wranglers" as they're apparently called in Arch land) are unnecessary in most cases if only users could properly flag their reports with the corresponding package. I'm In other words, I'm claiming this is mostly a UI problem rather than a man power problem. Yay for reading comprehension...
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On 03/27/2011 05:16 AM, Angus wrote: When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and automatically notified of the report. you seem to be a regular bugzilla user. You can't specify a package because we have a lot of them and somebody has to add them as a project and sucks(it might be a limitation for flyspray) instead we chose to have some style but not everyone use it. [packagename] short description The way it works now seems to be that I have to wait for some generic bug janitor to manually assign my report to the maintainer of the package (correct me if I'm mistaken). For example, I filed a bug report nearly two days ago, but apparently no janitor (or any other maintainer) has looked at it jet, which means all that time is wasted for hardly any reason (and no, I won't specify which bug. It's irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing here.) I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so maybe we can improve this system? only if we use bugzilla. -- Ionuț
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
Angus wrote: >> When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I >> specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it >> possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and >> automatically notified of the report. >> >> The way it works now seems to be that I have to wait for some generic >> bug janitor to manually assign my report to the maintainer of the >> package (correct me if I'm mistaken). For example, I filed a bug >> report nearly two days ago, but apparently no janitor (or any other >> maintainer) has looked at it jet, which means all that time is wasted >> for hardly any reason (and no, I won't specify which bug. It's >> irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing here.) >> >> I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so >> maybe we can improve this system? > > > ...come on, not even a single flame or a "+1"? -_-; > I think job description no.1 fits you perfectly. You seem to have what it takes. :) http://www.archlinux.org/news/contributors-wanted
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
> When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I > specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it > possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and > automatically notified of the report. > > The way it works now seems to be that I have to wait for some generic > bug janitor to manually assign my report to the maintainer of the > package (correct me if I'm mistaken). For example, I filed a bug > report nearly two days ago, but apparently no janitor (or any other > maintainer) has looked at it jet, which means all that time is wasted > for hardly any reason (and no, I won't specify which bug. It's > irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing here.) > > I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so > maybe we can improve this system? ...come on, not even a single flame or a "+1"? -_-;
[arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and automatically notified of the report. The way it works now seems to be that I have to wait for some generic bug janitor to manually assign my report to the maintainer of the package (correct me if I'm mistaken). For example, I filed a bug report nearly two days ago, but apparently no janitor (or any other maintainer) has looked at it jet, which means all that time is wasted for hardly any reason (and no, I won't specify which bug. It's irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing here.) I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so maybe we can improve this system?
