Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 02:00:05PM +0200, Warly wrote: IMNSHO: - I have no problem with the current cooker. Yes and you get paid to read the list. I don't. If you wanna pay me to read the list then I'll suddenly be okay with spending a lot of time reading stuff that doesn't matter much. I read the list so I can help fix problems and get a better distribution. For my effort I do get the reward of my issues being fixed (sometimes). However, Mandrakesoft receives many times the reward for my effort. It's surprising that Mandrakesoft consistently seems to be unwilling to decrease my cost (not necessarily money) in helping them get a better distribution. 1. It is not the point of making _you_ happy or not, but making the _most_ of contributors happy. 2. Usually when one touch something that works quite well it gets broken for some time. Splitting the list means most of the people unsubscribing and subscribing to a new one, then change again, then complain that they do not understand in the new system, that the previous one was better... 3. And yes I am paid to spend my all day trying to build a damn distro and making most of the people happy, but reading cooker is not my main cup of tea, I prefer writing my book instead. - 500 mails a day is about 2 MB, which represents 5 min of a 56k modem connection. However the bandwith argument is still valid to my mind. It's not about bandwidth for me. When I'm at home on my fast connection I don't care. It's about time and energy. When I'm away on vacation and on a 56k modem the time that it takes to download is definately more than 5 minutes and is definately not worth the effort. Why? Because there is so much noise. Most of the list is utterly uninteresting for most of the people on the list. It is still quite hard to find a way that pleased enough contributors to be efficient. Maybe could we first try with cooker-install for the install, cooker-mandrake-tools for the configuration tools, cooker-graphic-interface for anything related to KDE, Gnome and co and cooker for the rest ? As I said before the argument for filtering and scoring is weak. Everyone has to go to a great deal of effort (I'd argue so much that it negates teh value in doing so) to set such a thing up. Split lists provide a way that the effort of filtering is distributed to everyone, sometimes people won't do their part to do the filtering right, sometimes I won't agree with how they filtered things. That isn't really all that different from those that have filters and scoring now. I doubt those people can seriously claim that their filters and scoring always pull the right mail out. - I agree that some people have various interests and are not interested in such or such topics. - You are the guys who participate to cooker freely as an help to Mandrakesoft, and it should be at your convenience to decide what to do (however we can consider that this a community stuff that should be decided by all the active contributors) So how exactly do we vote? Who gets a vote? What constitutes an active contributor? Who's going to tabulate the votes? I'm somewhat skeptical of this. I've yet to see Mandrakesoft actually act on any sort of vote. Usually we're just told how things are and we can either deal with them or not. If there's change afoot to deal with things differently than they have in the past in that regard well great. I'll reserve my judgement till we see what happens here. OK we are juste lames, you are right, forget about it. -- Warly
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Warly wrote: It is still quite hard to find a way that pleased enough contributors to be efficient. Maybe could we first try with cooker-install for the install, cooker-mandrake-tools for the configuration tools, cooker-graphic-interface for anything related to KDE, Gnome and co and cooker for the rest ? I think the biggest demand for a split list was coming from those interested in the server aspects. Since the machines involved typically *don't* run cooker (rather people are either working on 9.1 boxes, and hoping for better features for the next release, or do server packaging on their cooker desktop), these people have more to benefit than the others, since a large proportion of current cooker traffic is quite irrelevant? Anyway, I hope to start with the thread that I didn't want to go to all of cooker on cooker now, and we will see how it works ... and whether it might be an idea to split. Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/GCYJrJK6UGDSBKcRAlyDAJ4qWfAnFUZo1B3cCYuvbBRUObJ/LgCfSqnH 6OurpDeLoRKizyopmLA6B5k= =Bm97 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Why is there still an argument going on? The people against the split are saying, I don't see the need, but I guess we could try out a few sublists, if for nothing else then to keep you idiots quiet. The people who want the split are saying, You reactionary running-dog bastards, I demand that we try out a few sublists now! So, what exactly is all the shouting about? Let me summarize what everyone on all sides seems to be saying minus the rhetoric, and see if there's still any substantive disagreement: Step 1: Create a few sublists. Accept that this may not be the final breakdown, but a good starting point is Warly's suggestion (install tools, config tools, and GUI) plus Buchan's server-specific list. Step 2: For now, forward all of the lists to the master list cooker (munging reply-to if necessary), so people who don't do anything will continue to see everything. Alternatively, provide an easy way to subscribe to all lists at once (a message sent to everyone on the list that, if replied to, will subscribe you to the other lists). Step 3: Leave bugzilla alone, and everything else. Step 4: See how it goes.
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Fri 18 Jul 2003 09:53, Buchan Milne posted as excerpted below: I think the biggest demand for a split list was coming from those interested in the server aspects. It could also involve those NOT interested in the server aspects, as some of the biggest threads are server related. I am such a one. Personally, I could do without most of the kernel discussion as well, as I use a kernel.org self-compiled kernel and no initrd (altho I've been following the 2.5/2.6 discussion with interest, trying to decide when I want to switch), and without the install stuff for the most part, since I constantly upgrade. Thus, I support the general idea of a split, as it would certainly make life a bit easier for me. However, I understand enough of the practical implications to know a split might not work that well in practice, even for me. Still, the idea of having servers and install on separate lists which I can ignore, and kernel on a list which I can filter more intensely and check maybe weekly rather than almost daily, IS pretty enticing. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Hi Mate, if you have a server that holds the mails - just make sure you have the possibility to connect it through IMAP. Imap will only get you the headers - as long as you don't want to read a Mail. The way I do it - even if I have a Cable-Connection etc. - but it's way faster. On Wednesday 16 July 2003 03:25, Ben Reser wrote: Yes and you get paid to read the list. I don't. If you wanna pay me to read the list then I'll suddenly be okay with spending a lot of time reading stuff that doesn't matter much. I read the list so I can help fix problems and get a better distribution. For my effort I do get the reward of my issues being fixed (sometimes). However, Mandrakesoft receives many times the reward for my effort. It's surprising that Mandrakesoft consistently seems to be unwilling to decrease my cost (not necessarily money) in helping them get a better distribution. - 500 mails a day is about 2 MB, which represents 5 min of a 56k modem connection. However the bandwith argument is still valid to my mind. Yeah - on Imap-Headers - I'd say 90Kbytes. much faster. If It's not fast enough - try out batching :) Good old times if you ask me. you only need to find a UUCP-Server, set it up - and make sure to use bzip as Compression :) and everything will be finally batched up to the fastest transfer possibility ever :) Back in time - I even had a full functional INND with loads of News and Mails for about 16 People on a 14400 Link (Good old Zyxel Modems). You know - there are many possibilities to decrease your bandwidth. However - I think that if you think Cooker has way to much in it - I would unsubscribe from Cooker - and brwose through the Mail-Archives that are most probably somewhere on the Net. Just my 2 cents :) Cheers Joerg -- It is through symbols that man consciously or unconsciously lives, works and has his being. -- Thomas Carlyle | Joerg Mertin : [EMAIL PROTECTED](Home)| | in Neuchâtel/Schweiz : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alt1)| | Stardust's LiNUX System : [EMAIL PROTECTED](Alt2)| | Web: http://www.solsys.org: Voice Fax: +41(0)32 / 725 52 54 | PGP Fingerprint: AF0F FB75 997B 025F 4538 5AD6 9888 5D97 170B 8B7A
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Buchan Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Warly, you have mentioned this before, is it worthwhile doing? IMNSHO: - I have no problem with the current cooker. - 500 mails a day is about 2 MB, which represents 5 min of a 56k modem connection. However the bandwith argument is still valid to my mind. - I agree that some people have various interests and are not interested in such or such topics. - You are the guys who participate to cooker freely as an help to Mandrakesoft, and it should be at your convenience to decide what to do (however we can consider that this a community stuff that should be decided by all the active contributors) - I agree that multiple list will favor crosspost of people not knowing where to ask. - I agree that more mails will be missed because KDE team will not go the installation list checking if there is some stuff for them and vice et versa (bad example ? :). - I do not agree with the bugzilla mails having a special list, nobody will cc to the bug nor read the bugs ml, even if the bug is first sent to cooker. I think that the bugs comments are part of the general discussion on the developement, and should be considered as equivalent to cooker thread. -- Warly
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On 2003.07.15 08:00, Warly wrote: IMNSHO: - I have no problem with the current cooker. Word up. Warly, you are (as usual), the cool-headed voice of reason. Austin -- Austin Acton Hon.B.Sc. Synthetic Organic Chemist, Teaching Assistant Department of Chemistry, York University, Toronto MandrakeClub Volunteer (www.mandrakeclub.com) homepage: www.groundstate.ca
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 2003.07.15 08:00, Warly wrote: IMNSHO: - I have no problem with the current cooker. Word up. Warly, you are (as usual), the cool-headed voice of reason. Should we initiate a vote? -- dams
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
w == warly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: w - I agree that some people have various interests and are not w interested in such or such topics. They can always filter on the [topic] strings to downgrade messages they don't want to see. As for the bandwidth issue, if you ask me, I'd say someone on 56k dialup who's participating in a project which requires the routine download of 2.5Gb of ISO images probably knows how to manage their bandwidth ;) w - I agree that multiple list will favor crosspost of people not w knowing where to ask. It's always a fuzzy question with free software: Is the product broken, or am I just misunderstanding something? This is especially true for something as leading-edge addicted as Mandrake ;) -- every new release contains revolutionary components (eg zeroconf) that are not expected and not well documented online (ie, unknown to google) so there's going to be confusion, even from old unix-hacks (like me) who just missed the discussion. But _we_ are supposed to be the experts: If we invite messages into the cooker and someone posts an obvious installation/configuration issue or an issue more appropriate to another list, maybe what we need is a process to forward the message from here in the kitchen to where-ever. I'm not at all sure how that could work without twenty of us forwarding the same email to the KDE team or whatever here's a really crazy idea; maybe teams could appoint someone as their cooker-watcher (keeping in mind that Watts' pots never Boyle'd) and we parallel-distributed watchers could adopt a convention that when you see a message belonging elsewhere, to post an empty followup with the target group name as a [topic] in the subject line, for example, if we see a message Subject: Re: [Cooker] split lists? the cooker community can 'vote' it elsewhere by followups editing the subject line (remember that the References: header keeps messages threaded if your email software is suitably intelligent ;) so most readers would create a thread that looked like Subject: Re: [Cooker] split lists? Subject: [cooker.list.admin] Subject: [cooker.kde] If you see someone has already 'tagged' an issue, you don't bother, so we don't get long lists of this belongs elsewhere messages. Using their normal email filtering, people interested in those taxonomy terms would immediately see the empty followup, so all they have to do is fetch the messages above that point in the thread. of course, this would be _much_ easier if the cooker was a newsgroup :) w I think that the bugs comments are part of the general w discussion on the developement, and should be considered as w equivalent to cooker thread. Totally agreed. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: office voice/fax: 01 519 4222723 Business Advantage through Community Software - http://teledyn.com what I need is a job that doesn't interfere with my work -gary murphy
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
All of this discussion points to one thing (IMHO); things are much easier handled as they are. No additional responsibilities for people to handle, no additional places to go for information, nothing lost or placed in the wrong place. i.e. A good example of the K.I.S.S. principal in action. My vote is to just keep keeping on (as is). Bob FInch On Tuesday 15 July 2003 10:46 am, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: w == warly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: w - I agree that some people have various interests and are not w interested in such or such topics. They can always filter on the [topic] strings to downgrade messages they don't want to see. As for the bandwidth issue, if you ask me, I'd say someone on 56k dialup who's participating in a project which requires the routine download of 2.5Gb of ISO images probably knows how to manage their bandwidth ;) w - I agree that multiple list will favor crosspost of people not w knowing where to ask. It's always a fuzzy question with free software: Is the product broken, or am I just misunderstanding something? This is especially true for something as leading-edge addicted as Mandrake ;) -- every new release contains revolutionary components (eg zeroconf) that are not expected and not well documented online (ie, unknown to google) so there's going to be confusion, even from old unix-hacks (like me) who just missed the discussion. But _we_ are supposed to be the experts: If we invite messages into the cooker and someone posts an obvious installation/configuration issue or an issue more appropriate to another list, maybe what we need is a process to forward the message from here in the kitchen to where-ever. I'm not at all sure how that could work without twenty of us forwarding the same email to the KDE team or whatever here's a really crazy idea; maybe teams could appoint someone as their cooker-watcher (keeping in mind that Watts' pots never Boyle'd) and we parallel-distributed watchers could adopt a convention that when you see a message belonging elsewhere, to post an empty followup with the target group name as a [topic] in the subject line, for example, if we see a message Subject: Re: [Cooker] split lists? the cooker community can 'vote' it elsewhere by followups editing the subject line (remember that the References: header keeps messages threaded if your email software is suitably intelligent ;) so most readers would create a thread that looked like Subject: Re: [Cooker] split lists? Subject: [cooker.list.admin] Subject: [cooker.kde] If you see someone has already 'tagged' an issue, you don't bother, so we don't get long lists of this belongs elsewhere messages. Using their normal email filtering, people interested in those taxonomy terms would immediately see the empty followup, so all they have to do is fetch the messages above that point in the thread. of course, this would be _much_ easier if the cooker was a newsgroup :) w I think that the bugs comments are part of the general w discussion on the developement, and should be considered as w equivalent to cooker thread. Totally agreed.
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tuesday 15 July 2003 17:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 2003.07.15 08:00, Warly wrote: IMNSHO: - I have no problem with the current cooker. Word up. Warly, you are (as usual), the cool-headed voice of reason. Should we initiate a vote? I vote yes for a vote. Now, how should we vote ? By sending a list of me too ? Shouldn't we prepare something, like glastnost, or a evote system ? can the wiki be used for this ? -- Mickaël Scherer
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tuesday 15 July 2003 17:46, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: w == warly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: w - I agree that some people have various interests and are not w interested in such or such topics. They can always filter on the [topic] strings to downgrade messages they don't want to see. As for the bandwidth issue, if you ask me, I'd say someone on 56k dialup who's participating in a project which requires the routine download of 2.5Gb of ISO images probably knows how to manage their bandwidth ;) well, the bandwidth problem is not really on the client side, but more on the fact than for some people, 50% of the list is noise. so, this requires more computation power, and will only get worse when more and more people will participate in cooker. The problem is simply that current setup doesn't scale. Right know, i am in favor of splitting, even i think current situation is fine. We should solve problem before they happen, not after. -- Mickaël Scherer
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 02:00:05PM +0200, Warly wrote: IMNSHO: - I have no problem with the current cooker. Yes and you get paid to read the list. I don't. If you wanna pay me to read the list then I'll suddenly be okay with spending a lot of time reading stuff that doesn't matter much. I read the list so I can help fix problems and get a better distribution. For my effort I do get the reward of my issues being fixed (sometimes). However, Mandrakesoft receives many times the reward for my effort. It's surprising that Mandrakesoft consistently seems to be unwilling to decrease my cost (not necessarily money) in helping them get a better distribution. - 500 mails a day is about 2 MB, which represents 5 min of a 56k modem connection. However the bandwith argument is still valid to my mind. It's not about bandwidth for me. When I'm at home on my fast connection I don't care. It's about time and energy. When I'm away on vacation and on a 56k modem the time that it takes to download is definately more than 5 minutes and is definately not worth the effort. Why? Because there is so much noise. Most of the list is utterly uninteresting for most of the people on the list. As I said before the argument for filtering and scoring is weak. Everyone has to go to a great deal of effort (I'd argue so much that it negates teh value in doing so) to set such a thing up. Split lists provide a way that the effort of filtering is distributed to everyone, sometimes people won't do their part to do the filtering right, sometimes I won't agree with how they filtered things. That isn't really all that different from those that have filters and scoring now. I doubt those people can seriously claim that their filters and scoring always pull the right mail out. - I agree that some people have various interests and are not interested in such or such topics. - You are the guys who participate to cooker freely as an help to Mandrakesoft, and it should be at your convenience to decide what to do (however we can consider that this a community stuff that should be decided by all the active contributors) So how exactly do we vote? Who gets a vote? What constitutes an active contributor? Who's going to tabulate the votes? I'm somewhat skeptical of this. I've yet to see Mandrakesoft actually act on any sort of vote. Usually we're just told how things are and we can either deal with them or not. If there's change afoot to deal with things differently than they have in the past in that regard well great. I'll reserve my judgement till we see what happens here. - I agree that multiple list will favor crosspost of people not knowing where to ask. That's why you write clear charters of where to send stuff. And tell everyone if in doubt send to the main cooker list. There will always be people who read all of the lists and those people (employees and highly active contributors) will very likely nudge things in the right direction. This already happens now with support issues for the released distros, why would it be any different for split lists? - I agree that more mails will be missed because KDE team will not go the installation list checking if there is some stuff for them and vice et versa (bad example ? :). Split lists aren't for the convience of the employees it is for the convience of those that don't spend full time working on it. If the employees are that worried that they will miss something they can always subscribe to all the lists or a master list that is subscribed to all the lists as I've suggested previously on this thread. - I do not agree with the bugzilla mails having a special list, nobody will cc to the bug nor read the bugs ml, even if the bug is first sent to cooker. I think that the bugs comments are part of the general discussion on the developement, and should be considered as equivalent to cooker thread. Part of the use of Bugzilla is allowing people to limit down the amount of things they have to see. This response seems just as flawed as the arguments against using Bugzilla in the first place. The benefits of using Bugzilla are numerous... a) I get to pick and choose *BEFORE* tons of mail gets to me what I see. b) If someone mentions a bug id to me it is easy to bring it up, see exactly what has happened to it and read it. Instead of having to try and have them (or myself) find the thread on one of the archives. c) If a bug proves to be uninteresting then I can remove myself from the CC list. d) Bugs can be reassigned to more appropriate people/lists taking along with them all of the previous commentary. e) It provides an opportunity to require things to be escalated before employees see it. Would people not CC to bugs? Well that's really an unknown question. We haven't tried it yet. The argument that people would file bugs against the wrong component has proved be a minor issue, they simply get refiled against the right one. If someone chooses not
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Mon 07 Jul 2003 05:40, Buchan Milne posted as excerpted below: This has been brought up before, but I wonder if it would be useful to have focused cooker lists. ... So, would it be worthwhile to have lists dedicated to: -server software (apache/samba/ldap/postfix etc) -KDE -GNOME -Other desktop software -kernel -admin tools (incl. drakxtools/drakx etc) Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists, Probably add another for non-kernel non-admin-tool core, including networking and connectivity, installation, etc. What of cross-posting issues? What if something deals with a KDE network config/admin tool? It could then be posted to KDE, admin tools, and my suggested core group. If somebody was on all three, they'd get three copies, which would be a bit annoying.. I think this would be a good argument for making it a set of newsgroups, ported to mailing lists for those interested, rather than the current list, or proposed set of lists, ported to news for those that prefer. News has specific provisions for the above scenario, and there'd be only a single copy. Most news clients would track it as such, provided all groups were d/led together, so that there'd be only a single copy, and once it was read on one group, it would show read on all groups. (Said as one that prefers news and has been going to switch to getting the list in that format, but hasn't actually done so yet.. g) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: On Mon 07 Jul 2003 05:40, Buchan Milne posted as excerpted below: Probably add another for non-kernel non-admin-tool core, including networking and connectivity, installation, etc. Well, my intention was that this kind of generic stuff would stay on current cooker (everything that isn't easily classifiable into another category). What of cross-posting issues? What if something deals with a KDE network config/admin tool? They are few and far between IMHO. More common at present are single-catogory threads which have to cc people not on cooker. It could then be posted to KDE, admin tools, and my suggested core group. Only necessary to post to cooker if it affects anythign besides the admin tools and KDE. If somebody was on all three, they'd get three copies, which would be a bit annoying.. I already get at least two copies of many posts (cc's etc). But overall I would get less mail. I think this would be a good argument for making it a set of newsgroups, ported to mailing lists for those interested, rather than the current list, or proposed set of lists, ported to news for those that prefer. News has specific provisions for the above scenario, and there'd be only a single copy. Most news clients would track it as such, provided all groups were d/led together, so that there'd be only a single copy, and once it was read on one group, it would show read on all groups. News servers aren't necessarily accessible to everyone, so while there is very little other difference to mail-news vs news-mail, let's do one thing at a time. (Said as one that prefers news and has been going to switch to getting the list in that format, but hasn't actually done so yet.. g) So we won't take your opinion on mail vs news as authoratative? Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/C+pkrJK6UGDSBKcRAt3MAJ9543lPw6pU9ikCgjh5V8YL0M+YsgCeKuwZ AHr3Eao7h4oa9m4Cc3oJv+Q= =EKfM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Frank Griffin wrote: Umm, Ok, here's another obvious newbie question. Is there a link that describes the voting process for Cooker (Bugzilla) bugs. I've just been submitting bug reports in the (probably naive) belief that they would be routed to the category owners and acted upon according to whatever priority scheme is dictated by Mandrake's internal business practices. However, comments on those bugs have hinted at some sort of voting practice. As far as I knew, the only voting was on Club packages. How do you vote for bugs (and what is the protocol of doing so) ? Response on bug reports: I looks like there is no scheme of who is looking after bugreports. There are many bugs which were reported during the 9.1 beta which are still uncovered. Why should I post a bug if I know no one will be looking at it? Votes: Looks like the voting feature is disabled at the moment. Voting is an essential feature of bugzilla, it was introduced to stop me too comments and it is very interesting to see what bugs are important for the community. You could even use this commercialy if you give the club members more votes according to their membership or count votes from club members seperately. Then you could give feedback to the club like this week we have fixed 87 bugs this includes the 28 bugs you carred most about. Regards, Helge
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Frederic Crozat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, there are a lot of bugs and all can't be closed because either: -infos are insufficent for reproducing the bug (I doesn't work..) -hardware related problem, impossible to reproduce here -complex application bug which can only be resolved by apps authors (that is why I ask people to submit bugs on mozilla.org or gnome.org when it is not a Mdk issue).. - and bugs waiting for more info or for testing some fix ...
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Wed Jul 09 2:48 -0700, Duncan wrote: What of cross-posting issues? What if something deals with a KDE network config/admin tool? It could then be posted to KDE, admin tools, and my suggested core group. If somebody was on all three, they'd get three copies, which would be a bit annoying.. That's what procmail is for... -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Take due notice and govern yourselves accordingly. Currently playing: Rush - Test for Echo - Dog Years Linux 2.4.21-0.15mdk 09:35:00 up 3 days, 21:11, 9 users, load average: 0.27, 0.21, 0.24
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:00:51 +0200, Helge Hielscher wrote: Frank Griffin wrote: Umm, Ok, here's another obvious newbie question. Is there a link that describes the voting process for Cooker (Bugzilla) bugs. I've just been submitting bug reports in the (probably naive) belief that they would be routed to the category owners and acted upon according to whatever priority scheme is dictated by Mandrake's internal business practices. However, comments on those bugs have hinted at some sort of voting practice. As far as I knew, the only voting was on Club packages. How do you vote for bugs (and what is the protocol of doing so) ? Response on bug reports: I looks like there is no scheme of who is looking after bugreports. There are many bugs which were reported during the 9.1 beta which are still uncovered. Why should I post a bug if I know no one will be looking at it? Because if you don't post a bug, you can be sure it won't be fixed at all.. Just complaining sucks, it doesn't work without reporting anything is not constructive at all.. Yes, there are a lot of bugs and all can't be closed because either: -infos are insufficent for reproducing the bug (I doesn't work..) -hardware related problem, impossible to reproduce here -complex application bug which can only be resolved by apps authors (that is why I ask people to submit bugs on mozilla.org or gnome.org when it is not a Mdk issue).. -- Frederic Crozat MandrakeSoft
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Helge Hielscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I looks like there is no scheme of who is looking after bugreports. There are many bugs which were reported during the 9.1 beta which are still uncovered. Why should I post a bug if I know no one will be looking at it? There are two categories of bugs: 1- bugs on install, or hardware support. We are burried under such bugs, with the following problems: - many duplicates - many poorly qualified bugs (and reporting accurate hardware information is non trivial) - the install changes much during beta stabilization - we have little resource to investigate hardware problems hence, many of them stay open forever. 2- bugs on software components. Here, in general bugs are of better quality, and do bring us a much valuable information. Most of them get fixed. Even if posting in 1st category and getting ignored is not pleasant, posting in 2nd category is still much useful and mostly leads to a solution. That should become a FAQ, I guess. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:36:33AM -0400, Levi Ramsey wrote: That's what procmail is for... More specifically: :0 Wh: $PMDIR/.msgid.lock | formail -D 8192 $PMDIR/.msgid.cache -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you. -- Nietzsche
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Frederic Crozat wrote: Yes, there are a lot of bugs and all can't be closed because either: -infos are insufficent for reproducing the bug (I doesn't work..) Then at least the bug status should be changed to needinfo. At the moment there are 955 bugs with the status unconfirmed 48 of them were not changed after March 2003. [1] If I take some bugs I reported as an example: http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3319 Opened 2003.03.14 - no response so far http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3359 Opened 2003.03.16 - no response so far http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3360 Opened 2003.03.16 - no response so far All these bugs have nothing to do with the installation. It is just sad to see that no one cares about the bugs. If there is no time to fix the bug than set the bugs to resolved later. [1] This includes installer and hardware bugs b/c i could not search for all packages except installer and hardware. Regards, Helge
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: There are two categories of bugs: 1- bugs on install, or hardware support. We are burried under such bugs, with the following problems: - many duplicates - many poorly qualified bugs (and reporting accurate hardware information is non trivial) - the install changes much during beta stabilization - we have little resource to investigate hardware problems hence, many of them stay open forever. Maybe I don't understand the categories correctly, but I have submitted many install bugs with reproducible cases which seem to stay UNCONFIRMED forever. I'm assuming that UNCONFIRMED means that nobody has had time to try the reproducible case, and that if they had, the bug would have changed status to either ASSIGNED, WORKSFORME, or NEEDSINFO. So not all install bugs which stay open forever do so because they are poor bug reports. The indication is that many of them simply don't get looked at because of resource issues.
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Mdk maintainer not answering on this mailing-list is another problem, which won't be solved by splitting the ml, for sure. Well, I was under the impression that some used the excuse not having time to read/reply to 100rds of mails a day. Dumb excuse IF the poster CC's the maintainer with problems, should be in the maintainer's mailbox separate from cooker, and not have [Cooker] in the subject, so won't (hopefully) be filtered out. An acknowlegement that the problem was received - even if no fix if forthcoming any time soon - would go a long way to keeping the flames on low heat :-) Well, this is annoying to add one or two CC by hand. As all manual and repetitive task, if it can be automated, it should. That why mailling list were created, to not have to add everyone in CC. What if the mainteners is not here, as it sometimes happens ? Or, if the mainteners changes ? And so, people need to be aware that mdk employees doesn't read the list ? And they need to be aware that they should CC ? -- Michaël Scherer
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Michael Scherer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, this is annoying to add one or two CC by hand. As all manual and repetitive task, if it can be automated, it should. Agreed.. of course. People who use scoring don't see that problem. That's just a matter of willingness.. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 02:07 am, Michael Scherer wrote: Mdk maintainer not answering on this mailing-list is another problem, which won't be solved by splitting the ml, for sure. Well, I was under the impression that some used the excuse not having time to read/reply to 100rds of mails a day. Dumb excuse IF the poster CC's the maintainer with problems, should be in the maintainer's mailbox separate from cooker, and not have [Cooker] in the subject, so won't (hopefully) be filtered out. An acknowlegement that the problem was received - even if no fix if forthcoming any time soon - would go a long way to keeping the flames on low heat :-) Well, this is annoying to add one or two CC by hand. As all manual and repetitive task, if it can be automated, it should. Yes, but HOPEFULLY isn't a common task. Giving the package maintainer a heads up about a problem or asking if something is going to be updated maybe applies here. Any cooker-related dialog as to debugging things, etc, i'd expect would / should bring the developer or packager back to the list - even if only to follow one thread about their package. That why mailling list were created, to not have to add everyone in CC. What if the mainteners is not here, as it sometimes happens ? Or, if the mainteners changes ? Well, is ONE package maintainer everyone ? And so, people need to be aware that mdk employees doesn't read the list ? And they need to be aware that they should CC ? Good point. Maybe some guidence from Mandrakesoft regarding who / where / IF to CC on specific packages? Regards, Vinny
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vincent Meyer, MD wrote: On Tuesday 08 July 2003 02:07 am, Michael Scherer wrote: Well, is ONE package maintainer everyone ? OK, let's see. If I want to discuss ldap authentication for apache (making it work better out the box), I would want to cc Florin (maintainer of openldap, very seldom seen replying to threads on cooker relating to packages he maintians), JM (would like to be cc'ed on apache stuff) and Vince (who seems to have stopped reading cooker since the heated Development extranet thread) who is probably the Mandrakesoft employee with the most LDAP experience. And if it the topic was a web-based admin frontend for samba on an LDAP backen, then I would add Sylvestre (who doesn't read cooker much either). How often is this going to occur? I think quite often. How often is discussion relating to cooker or Mandrake development done in private because it is more effective than posting on cooker at present? I probably have at least 2 dicussions per week (as a number of people here can testify) that could better be discussed on a KDE-specific, kernel-specific or server-specific list. Due to the problems with using cooker for these, other people who I aren't added to the cc list who might be interested in the discussions are excluded. And so, people need to be aware that mdk employees doesn't read the list ? And they need to be aware that they should CC ? Good point. Maybe some guidence from Mandrakesoft regarding who / where / IF to CC on specific packages? Well, never cc to fcrozat, but there are a lot of others you *must* if you want a remote chance of things happening (without opening a bug). Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/Cr5hrJK6UGDSBKcRAjE1AJ96WM0jKEMF+bcEHLeA+nF4JgTTMACfQwU2 wF8VNK5g71E2kfCZd55dj9s= =K799 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:40:10PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote: There are some topics I haven't brought up on cooker, that I would like to discuss with other cookers, but since it is quite specialised (regarding default ACLs in openldap, kerberos, samba in conjunction) I don't really feel comfortable spamming the cookers who want to discuss latest KDE or similar topics. So, would it be worthwhile to have lists dedicated to: -server software (apache/samba/ldap/postfix etc) -KDE -GNOME -Other desktop software -kernel -admin tools (incl. drakxtools/drakx etc) Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists, it *would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and some people who aren't active on cooker (due to high traffic) may be able to participate in a more focused list. Of course, normal cooker list would stay as is mostly, for general stuff that affects everyone or more than one or two focused areas. WDYT? Warly, you have mentioned this before, is it worthwhile doing? You know I used to fall in the I don't like this category... But I'd have to say I agree with this. I'm 10,000 emails behind on this list. Mostly because other things have come up and I just haven't had time to keep up with the list. As a result my contributions are down. If I can just not receive KDE/Gnome/and other things I don't really care about it would save me time. Part of the reason I fall behind is because I set cooker mail not to download when I go on vacation. I just don't have the time to be downloading all of this email when I'm on dialup. If I actually knew the majority of it was relevent then great I probably would. But 99.% of this list is entirely worthless to me. Back when Bugzilla was put in place I suggested that bugs only be sent to the list for the first bug report (so people see the reports) and then the rest would happen off the list. If you cared about a bug you subscribed to it. If you didn't then you wouldn't see it after the first entry. We really aren't taking full advantage of the power of Bugzilla... Why shove every bug report and comment down everyone's email pipe? It's entirely wasteful of our time to delete stuff we just don't care about. As far as scoring and filtering... That only works if people write proper email subjects and that doesn't always happen. Of course a huge problem around here is that certain people always assume that there's no point in doing anything because the majority of people are stupid or something. It's like my suggestions to update the documentation on building rpms, which was responding with essentially Why nobody reads it? Automation requires time to setup and tweak to what you want and even then isn't entirely accurate. Separating the lists out won't be entirely accurate, but it moves the job of sorting from the receiver and puts it on the sender. Rather than have many of us redoing the same work only one person has to do it that way... Will people abuse multiple lists? Yes Will people ignore the proper lists? Yes But these aren't any different than the existing problems we have. People already abuse this list. People already ignore the proper lists here and already set bad subjects which make filtering difficult. Splitting the list isn't an argument to solve these problems. It is an argument to solve the problems that can be solved, the emails from conciencious people. Further, splitting the list won't harm anyone anyway. If some people really want a master list just make another list that is subscribed to all the other lists. Then the people that want to get everything can and can use their filtering. Those that want to limit what they want to receive can. Everyone is happy. Problem solved. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you. -- Nietzsche
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Frank Griffin wrote: I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report. Well, if it were a seperate list, you wouldn't have to question it. Aren't people supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ? The bugzilla mails to the list are not mainly for people who would otherwise post bugs, it is mainly for people who can help fix bugs. It allows distributed bug resolution. Before the bugzilla list, bugzilla traffic was much lower. If they run into something, searching Bugzilla seems a lot more straightforward than hoping that you remember some mail that flew by a month or so ago. For me, it is much quicker to search through my 3-6-month archive of the bugzilla mails, than to even get to the bugzilla search page. Also, one of the problems with Bugzilla is that certain categories (like Installation) bypass sending mail to anybody at Mandrake *except* the Cooker ML. File a bug on Bugzilla (not bugzilla ... IIRC). Regards, Buchan
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Buchan Milne wrote: Aren't people supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ? The bugzilla mails to the list are not mainly for people who would otherwise post bugs, it is mainly for people who can help fix bugs. It allows distributed bug resolution. Before the bugzilla list, bugzilla traffic was much lower. Sorry if I'm being dense (I'm pretty new to the undocumented Cooker social protocols and I'm not about to try searching the ML for bugzilla), but if someone is interested in working on bugs in one or several product areas, wouldn't it just be simpler to run a Bugzilla query every day/week/month/whatever for all bugs in those areas since the last time you queried ? That would avoid wading through all of the bug reports for those areas that don't interest you. Of course, every time I try to run complex bugzilla searches, I get 500 Internal Server Errors If they run into something, searching Bugzilla seems a lot more straightforward than hoping that you remember some mail that flew by a month or so ago. For me, it is much quicker to search through my 3-6-month archive of the bugzilla mails, than to even get to the bugzilla search page. Again, I ask from ignorance, but would it be possible to register with Bugzilla for a product category (rather than a specific bug) so that you would get mails for any activity in that product category ? Also, one of the problems with Bugzilla is that certain categories (like Installation) bypass sending mail to anybody at Mandrake *except* the Cooker ML. File a bug on Bugzilla (not bugzilla ... IIRC). I'll be happy to, but since it was only the Installation category where I noticed this (you get told that mail will *not* be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]), I sort of figured it was intentional :-) Thanks, Frank
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Ben Reser wrote: Back when Bugzilla was put in place I suggested that bugs only be sent to the list for the first bug report (so people see the reports) and then the rest would happen off the list. If you cared about a bug you subscribed to it. If you didn't then you wouldn't see it after the first entry. We really aren't taking full advantage of the power of Bugzilla... Why shove every bug report and comment down everyone's email pipe? It's entirely wasteful of our time to delete stuff we just don't care about. I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report. Aren't people supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ? If they run into something, searching Bugzilla seems a lot more straightforward than hoping that you remember some mail that flew by a month or so ago. Also, one of the problems with Bugzilla is that certain categories (like Installation) bypass sending mail to anybody at Mandrake *except* the Cooker ML.
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Buchan Milne wrote: I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report. Well, if it were a seperate list, you wouldn't have to question it. I should have pointed out that if the Bugzilla stuff went to a separate list, then my query about other ways to do this through Bugzilla would be moot...
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tue Jul 08 17:26 -0400, Frank Griffin wrote: I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report. Aren't people supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ? If they run into something, searching Bugzilla seems a lot more straightforward than hoping that you remember some mail that flew by a month or so ago. I think the logic wasn't to prevent duplicate bug reports but to help get more testing of specific bugs (and votes for bugs). -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Take due notice and govern yourselves accordingly. Currently playing: Rush - Grace Under Pressure - Red Lenses Linux 2.4.21-0.15mdk 19:41:00 up 3 days, 7:17, 7 users, load average: 0.06, 0.09, 0.13
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 05:26:21PM -0400, Frank Griffin wrote: I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report. Aren't people supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ? If they run into something, searching Bugzilla seems a lot more straightforward than hoping that you remember some mail that flew by a month or so ago. As other people have pointed out I don't consider the list as a useful method of finding out if the bug you have submitted was already reported. However, if the first bug report was sent to a separate list by default then it'd create a nice mail archive to search for submitted bug reports (for those that find Bugzilla too slow). Also, one of the problems with Bugzilla is that certain categories (like Installation) bypass sending mail to anybody at Mandrake *except* the Cooker ML. If you mean that bugs have to be voted on before they get seen by the developers then that is good and useful. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you. -- Nietzsche
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 04:34 pm, Ben Reser wrote: receive can. Everyone is happy. Problem solved. I think Ben has eloquently created a workable middle ground. I was on the fence until I read his post, but I think that he makes some strong arguments for seperating lists, and I would support that, especially if it got more MandrakeSofters reading the posts. -- /g Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book, inside a dog it's too dark to read -Groucho Marx
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 06:35:59PM -0400, Frank Griffin wrote: Sorry if I'm being dense (I'm pretty new to the undocumented Cooker social protocols and I'm not about to try searching the ML for bugzilla), but if someone is interested in working on bugs in one or several product areas, wouldn't it just be simpler to run a Bugzilla query every day/week/month/whatever for all bugs in those areas since the last time you queried ? That would avoid wading through all of the bug reports for those areas that don't interest you. There are actually relatively few bug reports, we're only on Bug 4171... Given that we've been probably using Bugzilla since the beginning of the 9.1 cycle... and there were some bugs in there already that's not too bad. If you add in every comment on each of those bugs the number of messages increases substaintially. Of course, every time I try to run complex bugzilla searches, I get 500 Internal Server Errors If that's the case then those problems should be filed as bug reports against Bugzilla itself so Warly can fix them. Again, I ask from ignorance, but would it be possible to register with Bugzilla for a product category (rather than a specific bug) so that you would get mails for any activity in that product category ? If we were making full use of Bugzilla there would be a way to either watch categories of bugs or at least specific packages bugs. Maintainers already basically get this. I don't see why other people who are interested in a package shouldn't get this benefit too. It helps pull the signal from the noise. Should increase contributions and would hopefully cause more bugs to be fixed without the maintainer/employee of having to do the foot work of figuring the issue out. But I've made these suggestions in the past and nobody seemed all that interested in them. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you. -- Nietzsche
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Levi Ramsey wrote: On Tue Jul 08 17:26 -0400, Frank Griffin wrote: I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report. Aren't people supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ? If they run into something, searching Bugzilla seems a lot more straightforward than hoping that you remember some mail that flew by a month or so ago. I think the logic wasn't to prevent duplicate bug reports but to help get more testing of specific bugs (and votes for bugs). Umm, Ok, here's another obvious newbie question. Is there a link that describes the voting process for Cooker (Bugzilla) bugs. I've just been submitting bug reports in the (probably naive) belief that they would be routed to the category owners and acted upon according to whatever priority scheme is dictated by Mandrake's internal business practices. However, comments on those bugs have hinted at some sort of voting practice. As far as I knew, the only voting was on Club packages. How do you vote for bugs (and what is the protocol of doing so) ?
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Ben Reser wrote: Also, one of the problems with Bugzilla is that certain categories (like Installation) bypass sending mail to anybody at Mandrake *except* the Cooker ML. If you mean that bugs have to be voted on before they get seen by the developers then that is good and useful. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Somehow I missed the description of bugs having to be voted upon to be seen by developers. I've just been submitting them. Can you provide a link that describes this practice ?
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Ben Reser wrote: Of course, every time I try to run complex bugzilla searches, I get 500 Internal Server Errors If that's the case then those problems should be filed as bug reports against Bugzilla itself so Warly can fix them. If we were making full use of Bugzilla there would be a way to either watch categories of bugs or at least specific packages bugs. Maintainers already basically get this. I don't see why other people who are interested in a package shouldn't get this benefit too. It helps pull the signal from the noise. Should increase contributions and would hopefully cause more bugs to be fixed without the maintainer/employee of having to do the foot work of figuring the issue out. But I've made these suggestions in the past and nobody seemed all that interested in them. I didn't report them because I assumed they were Bugzilla bugs (and thus outside of Mandrake's province). If Warly maintains Bugzilla, then I will.
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:14:38PM -0400, Frank Griffin wrote: I didn't report them because I assumed they were Bugzilla bugs (and thus outside of Mandrake's province). If Warly maintains Bugzilla, then I will. He maintains Mandrake's installation of if which is most definately not stanard... -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you. -- Nietzsche
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:09:30PM -0400, Frank Griffin wrote: Somehow I missed the description of bugs having to be voted upon to be seen by developers. I've just been submitting them. Can you provide a link that describes this practice ? I'm not sure there is a specific link. And what some developers are doing on their packages may differ... Some packages have a lot more bug reports against them (KDE e.g.) -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you. -- Nietzsche
[Cooker] split lists?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This has been brought up before, but I wonder if it would be useful to have focused cooker lists. There are some topics I haven't brought up on cooker, that I would like to discuss with other cookers, but since it is quite specialised (regarding default ACLs in openldap, kerberos, samba in conjunction) I don't really feel comfortable spamming the cookers who want to discuss latest KDE or similar topics. So, would it be worthwhile to have lists dedicated to: - -server software (apache/samba/ldap/postfix etc) - -KDE - -GNOME - -Other desktop software - -kernel - -admin tools (incl. drakxtools/drakx etc) Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists, it *would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and some people who aren't active on cooker (due to high traffic) may be able to participate in a more focused list. Of course, normal cooker list would stay as is mostly, for general stuff that affects everyone or more than one or two focused areas. WDYT? Warly, you have mentioned this before, is it worthwhile doing? Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/CWoprJK6UGDSBKcRAuvYAJ9iMRDVoWRPFq9M8oExHSMulOCpjACfZBBa o4doRdXjtPfgvbrV8A15MzY= =+D9d -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:40:10 +0200, Buchan Milne wrote: This has been brought up before, but I wonder if it would be useful to have focused cooker lists. There are some topics I haven't brought up on cooker, that I would like to discuss with other cookers, but since it is quite specialised (regarding default ACLs in openldap, kerberos, samba in conjunction) I don't really feel comfortable spamming the cookers who want to discuss latest KDE or similar topics. So, would it be worthwhile to have lists dedicated to: - -server software (apache/samba/ldap/postfix etc) - -KDE - -GNOME - -Other desktop software - -kernel - -admin tools (incl. drakxtools/drakx etc) Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists, it *would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and some people who aren't active on cooker (due to high traffic) may be able to participate in a more focused list. Of course, normal cooker list would stay as is mostly, for general stuff that affects everyone or more than one or two focused areas. WDYT? I'm against that.. The goal of this mailing list is to stabilize cooker, nothing else.. You can always use scoring on specific subjects, if needed.. -- Frederic Crozat MandrakeSoft
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Buchan Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists, it *would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and some people who aren't active on cooker (due to high traffic) may be able to participate in a more focused list. It's just a matter of categorizing discussions. I happen to not follow closely KDE discussions for example. If people can't categorize (with the subject) in cooker ML, I don't think they will be able to select the right mailing-list to post to. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Monday 07 July 2003 08:40 am, Buchan Milne wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This has been brought up before, but I wonder if it would be useful to have focused cooker lists. There are some topics I haven't brought up on cooker, that I would like to discuss with other cookers, but since it is quite specialised (regarding default ACLs in openldap, kerberos, samba in conjunction) I don't really feel comfortable spamming the cookers who want to discuss latest KDE or similar topics. So, would it be worthwhile to have lists dedicated to: - -server software (apache/samba/ldap/postfix etc) - -KDE - -GNOME - -Other desktop software - -kernel - -admin tools (incl. drakxtools/drakx etc) Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists, it *would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and some people who aren't active on cooker (due to high traffic) may be able to participate in a more focused list. Of course, normal cooker list would stay as is mostly, for general stuff that affects everyone or more than one or two focused areas. WDYT? Warly, you have mentioned this before, is it worthwhile doing? Regards, Buchan Buchan, I'm for leaving it where it is, and for having you bring these things up on the general list. Maybe everyone isn't interested, but SOME will be, and might not know they are until / unless they see a post about something and think Hey, that's cool, let me try it or me too or whatever. Heck, during the last minute crunch we were getting hundreds of e-mails per day, and the delete key got a workout. I don't mind that on the cooker list. Now if they were posts for generic vxxagra, THEN maybe.. but not for legit cooking. Regards, Vinny - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/CWoprJK6UGDSBKcRAuvYAJ9iMRDVoWRPFq9M8oExHSMulOCpjACfZBBa o4doRdXjtPfgvbrV8A15MzY= =+D9d -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Buchan Milne wrote: There are some topics I haven't brought up on cooker, that I would like to discuss with other cookers, but since it is quite specialised (regarding default ACLs in openldap, kerberos, samba in conjunction) I don't really feel comfortable spamming the cookers who want to discuss latest KDE or similar topics. I don't see why you shouldn't bring these things up. With a proper subject (e.g., Regarding default ACLs in openldap, kerberos, samba in conjunction), people who aren't interested would know to skip it. I'll bet for 90% of the messages on cooker, the majority of the readers skip it. And that's fine. Also, there are already plenty of focused discussions going on all the time on the current list. I don't think the KDE Galaxy bugs discussion before 9.1, the libtool-1.5 discussion last week, or this discussion have gotten short shrift because they were buried among the rest of the cooker traffic
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: Buchan Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists, it *would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and some people who aren't active on cooker (due to high traffic) may be able to participate in a more focused list. It's just a matter of categorizing discussions. I happen to not follow closely KDE discussions for example. Well splitting list will have some advantages. Discussion will be more focused. The searching will be easier. And developpers will more easyly follow the list I can give the example of JMdault, who requested to be cced when discussing on apache and php. And, we cannot continue to have a growing number of contributors without having more list. Having everything in one list only add more noise. Right now, everyone can cope with it. But, in the future, this will be more and more difficult. I do not say that the scheme proposed by Buchan is the good one, but, at least, we should split server from desktop. We already have some list for separate topic. Why don't we do for the others ? At least, a general list, for subject concerning the whole distro, and some more focused list, for server, for kernel, etc. If people can't categorize (with the subject) in cooker ML, I don't think they will be able to select the right mailing-list to post to. This doesn't sound right. If people can't categorise, people won't post in the right mailling list, and so, splitting is useless. But, if people can categorize, we don't need to split, and so splitting is useless. So, in either case, splitting is useless. Which show that this is not a valid reason. Even if some people can't categorise, and will cross post , the majority will be able to choose the right list. Even if we can categorise by looking at the subject, we lose time to read the subject. -- Mickaël Scherer
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
måndagen den 7 juli 2003 16.42 skrev Michael Scherer: On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: Buchan Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists, it *would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and some people who aren't active on cooker (due to high traffic) may be able to participate in a more focused list. It's just a matter of categorizing discussions. I happen to not follow closely KDE discussions for example. Well splitting list will have some advantages. Discussion will be more focused. The searching will be easier. [snip] I have to concur on this. As I see it we could have at the least two lists, one for X stuff and one for server stuff. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson, Deserve-IT.com
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Scherer wrote: On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: Even if we can categorise by looking at the subject, we lose time to read the subject. And some people lose time just by receiving the mail (those on tight bandwidth for example). - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/CZUnrJK6UGDSBKcRAivsAJ4x9yA+s2mMb3Zrp2XitG89wHhSygCfQUnk UvKR4Wpfi9IfMg9WcCG52Lg= =oGsU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On 7 Jul 2003, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: It's just a matter of categorizing discussions. I happen to not follow closely KDE discussions for example. If people can't categorize (with the subject) in cooker ML, I don't think they will be able to select the right mailing-list to post to. It is more than only categorizing. Current problems as I see it: -some people do not have the bandwith to download 90% uninteresting messages -cooker is too much a discussion club instead of a technical list. If you post a patch, people are first going to debate whether it is wortwhile of actually trying it. And the maintainer in question doesn't reply. I hope this would be improved with more categorized lists. Such a list would also be more useful for testing, since you'd expect that if you are on a KDE list, you are not to lazy to quickly rebuild and test a specific patch for KDE. I would even go so far as to propose the list being not freely accessible. So you can be removed if you are just there to talk about the fact that latest kernel really, really panics, also on your machine. d.
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
måndagen den 7 juli 2003 17.43 skrev Buchan Milne: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Scherer wrote: On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: Even if we can categorise by looking at the subject, we lose time to read the subject. And some people lose time just by receiving the mail (those on tight bandwidth for example). Good point Buchan. I would really appreciate a server only list... -- Regards // Oden Eriksson, Deserve-IT.com
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 7 Jul 2003, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: It's just a matter of categorizing discussions. I happen to not follow closely KDE discussions for example. If people can't categorize (with the subject) in cooker ML, I don't think they will be able to select the right mailing-list to post to. It is more than only categorizing. Current problems as I see it: -some people do not have the bandwith to download 90% uninteresting messages ??? I think this is relevent for 0.1% of ppl out there. -cooker is too much a discussion club instead of a technical list. If you post a patch, people are first going to debate whether it is wortwhile of actually trying it. Debating on the patch is a *good* thing IMHO. After all, we want to build a community distro, not only ours. And the maintainer in question doesn't reply. I hope Mdk maintainer not answering on this mailing-list is another problem, which won't be solved by splitting the ml, for sure. this would be improved with more categorized lists. Well hoping is not enough. I hope so too, but I think this has absolutely zero chance to happen. Such a list would also be more useful for testing, since you'd expect that if you are on a KDE list, you are not to lazy to quickly rebuild and test a specific patch for KDE. I would even go so far as to propose the list being not freely accessible. Humbly against that (non free access is frightening by itself). So you can be removed if you are just there to talk about the fact that latest kernel really, really panics, also on your machine. Uneffective, IMHO. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Rather than split by product, I would suggest splitting out the Bugzilla mails. By definition, anybody interested in changes to bugs ought to be watching the bug (and therefore be mailed) anyway.
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Frederic Crozat wrote: The goal of this mailing list is to stabilize cooker, nothing else.. what about other goals? Like working together to fix problems? Where is the list for that? d.
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Monday 07 July 2003 08:43, Buchan Milne wrote: Michael Scherer wrote: On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: Even if we can categorise by looking at the subject, we lose time to read the subject. And some people lose time just by receiving the mail (those on tight bandwidth for example). OK, that's a good point. As long as there were a one-step way to subscribe to all of the mailing lists, there'd be no added hardship for Guillaume, me, or anyone else who still wanted to see everything. So why not
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frank Griffin wrote: Rather than split by product, I would suggest splitting out the Bugzilla mails. By definition, anybody interested in changes to bugs ought to be watching the bug (and therefore be mailed) anyway. The point of the bugzilla mails is to find interested people from cooker. I think before that, bugs got very lonely ... But it may be worthwhile having bugzilla on it's own list, so people interested in befriending bugs can have the opportunity. Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/CcyArJK6UGDSBKcRAshrAJ9AZSmuhjWCw6KiysEL+V9ye1LLegCdFAiH ZWUn6EvEvVxyyfwwltYTwG4= =wsOz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On 7 Jul 2003, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: ??? I think this is relevent for 0.1% of ppl out there. ironicThat must be 10% of all linux users!/ironic It is always good practice to make even small minorities happy, if it does not make a majority unhappy, IMO. Debating on the patch is a *good* thing IMHO. After all, we want to build a community distro, not only ours. I didn't say it was bad, cooker is there for that, but perhaps productivity could be improved. Mdk maintainer not answering on this mailing-list is another problem, which won't be solved by splitting the ml, for sure. Well, I was under the impression that some used the excuse not having time to read/reply to 100rds of mails a day. Well hoping is not enough. I hope so too, but I think this has absolutely zero chance to happen. well, we disagree:) I would even go so far as to propose the list being not freely accessible. Humbly against that (non free access is frightening by itself). well, you're allready against split-lists, so no use in discussing implementation me thinks. d.
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 19:34, Michael Scherer wrote: -some people do not have the bandwith to download 90% uninteresting messages ??? I think this is relevent for 0.1% of ppl out there. This is relevant for only 0,1% because people need some bandwidth to follow cooker ml, and so, people with low bandwidth are not here. Let's face it, it takes bandwidth to follow *Cooker*. And the Cooker ML is intended for people who use Cooker. I just don't see this as an issue. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 15:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Frederic Crozat wrote: The goal of this mailing list is to stabilize cooker, nothing else.. what about other goals? Like working together to fix problems? Where is the list for that? Er, you stabilise Cooker by working together to fix problems... -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Buchan Milne wrote: Warly, you have mentioned this before, is it worthwhile doing? Yes! - That would be great... There is a lot on 'noise' on the cooker list currently. My development effort is focused on the server side, and it would be so much simpler to follow what is going on with more 'focused' list(s). I realize Mandrake is more of a desktop distro, but I am seeing great things happening in the cooker contribs (on the server side). Maybe something as simple as Destop, Server Bugs lists. Just my $.02... Thanks, S
Re: [Cooker] split lists?
On Monday 07 July 2003 02:49 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7 Jul 2003, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: ??? I think this is relevent for 0.1% of ppl out there. ironicThat must be 10% of all linux users!/ironic It is always good practice to make even small minorities happy, if it does not make a majority unhappy, IMO. Debating on the patch is a *good* thing IMHO. After all, we want to build a community distro, not only ours. I didn't say it was bad, cooker is there for that, but perhaps productivity could be improved. Mdk maintainer not answering on this mailing-list is another problem, which won't be solved by splitting the ml, for sure. Well, I was under the impression that some used the excuse not having time to read/reply to 100rds of mails a day. Dumb excuse IF the poster CC's the maintainer with problems, should be in the maintainer's mailbox separate from cooker, and not have [Cooker] in the subject, so won't (hopefully) be filtered out. An acknowlegement that the problem was received - even if no fix if forthcoming any time soon - would go a long way to keeping the flames on low heat :-) Well hoping is not enough. I hope so too, but I think this has absolutely zero chance to happen. well, we disagree:) I would even go so far as to propose the list being not freely accessible. Humbly against that (non free access is frightening by itself) well, you're allready against split-lists, so no use in discussing implementation me thinks. d. Vinny
