Re: Wanted BTS feature: subscription to individual bug reports
Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:37:37 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: I can't find a way to track more-or-less easilly all bugs in BTS that I am somewhat involved into. If by 'involved' you mean submitted, then this might be useful: URL:http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I assume he mean also bugs on wich he had supplied additional information. Yes. Also, such BTS query just lists the report. What I want is immidiate notify on any additional posting to any of those reports. The best - a copy of that posting in my mailbox. Well, a script to pool BTS periodically, so the problem has a personal solution. But I think individual bug subscription is useful enough to be implemented at BTS level.
Re: Wanted BTS feature: subscription to individual bug reports
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:37:37 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: Hello. I can't find a way to track more-or-less easilly all bugs in BTS that I am somewhat involved into. If by 'involved' you mean submitted, then this might be useful: URL:http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cheers, Anand -- linux.conf.au 2005 - http://lca2005.linux.org.au/ - Birthplace of Tux April 18th to 23rd - http://lca2005.linux.org.au/ - LINUX Canberra, Australia - http://lca2005.linux.org.au/ -Get bitten!
Re: Wanted BTS feature: subscription to individual bug reports
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 01:59:36AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote: On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:37:37 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: Hello. I can't find a way to track more-or-less easilly all bugs in BTS that I am somewhat involved into. If by 'involved' you mean submitted, then this might be useful: URL:http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Or, if you want the short version: http://bugs.debian.org/from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Wanted BTS feature: subscription to individual bug reports
Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:37:37 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: I can't find a way to track more-or-less easilly all bugs in BTS that I am somewhat involved into. If by 'involved' you mean submitted, then this might be useful: URL:http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I assume he mean also bugs on wich he had supplied additional information. This feature would be very nice. Regards, Erik -- www.ErikSchanze.de * Bitte keine HTML-E-Mails! No HTML mails, please! Limit: 100 kB * * Linux-Info-Tag in Dresden, am 30. Oktober 2004 * Info: http://www.linux-info-tag.de *
Wanted BTS feature: subscription to individual bug reports
Hello. I can't find a way to track more-or-less easilly all bugs in BTS that I am somewhat involved into. Currently I can subscribe to bugs on per-package-basis (using PTS), or to all bugs using [EMAIL PROTECTED] Something thar could be really usable is subscribing to bugs that I've either submitted, or ever posted a comment to. Is something like that available/planned?
Re: Wanted BTS feature: subscription to individual bug reports
Re: Nikita V. Youshchenko in [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't find a way to track more-or-less easilly all bugs in BTS that I am somewhat involved into. Is something like that available/planned? Planned yes, available no: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20030918.123817.598830d5.en.html Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
BTS feature?
Hello, during the latest debate on the BTS, I thought of a new feature which would be really useful in the BTS. Instead of the maintainer sending a message to bugid[EMAIL PROTECTED] saying this is not a bug (which only serves to annoy submitters who are convinced otherwise), you should be able to send a message to bugid[EMAIL PROTECTED] The BTS system would automatically close the bug if nothing else is received, say within 30 days. If something is received, then the autoclose is cancelled, and the bug remains open. Same for responses of the type if I don't hear from you, I will assume this bug has been fixed. I think it would be nice if this could get automated. Comments? -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BTS feature?
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:38:06PM +1000, Brian May wrote: Hello, during the latest debate on the BTS, I thought of a new feature which would be really useful in the BTS. Instead of the maintainer sending a message to bugid[EMAIL PROTECTED] saying this is not a bug (which only serves to annoy submitters who are convinced otherwise), you should be able to send a message to bugid[EMAIL PROTECTED] The BTS system would automatically close the bug if nothing else is received, say within 30 days. If something is received, then the autoclose is cancelled, and the bug remains open. I don't follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that the bug submitters will be less annoyed if the bug is closed after 30 days, rather than immediately? Why would that be? -S
Re: BTS feature?
Steve M. Robbins writes: I don't follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that the bug submitters will be less annoyed if the bug is closed after 30 days, rather than immediately? Why would that be? Many bug submitters never respond to requests for additional information. Example: let's say I receive a bug against pppconfig which says I typed pon and nothing happened!. I conclude that it is probably operator error and send a request for clarification to bugid[EMAIL PROTECTED] In the meantime the submitter gets around to reading the pon man page and realizes that his connection was up all the time. He is so embarrassed that he doesn't respond. Consequently, at the end of 30 days the bug goes away by itself. Had he responded to my request, the bug would have become permanent and I would have to deal with it. I would think that this autoclose feature would be quite popular with maintainers of packages that receive large numbers of spurious or duplicate bug reports. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin
Re: BTS feature?
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:51:39AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Steve M. Robbins writes: I don't follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that the bug submitters will be less annoyed if the bug is closed after 30 days, rather than immediately? Why would that be? Many bug submitters never respond to requests for additional information. Example: let's say I receive a bug against pppconfig which says I typed pon and nothing happened!. I conclude that it is probably operator error and send a request for clarification to bugid[EMAIL PROTECTED] In the meantime the submitter gets around to reading the pon man page and realizes that his connection was up all the time. He is so embarrassed that he doesn't respond. Consequently, at the end of 30 days the bug goes away by itself. Had he responded to my request, the bug would have become permanent and I would have to deal with it. I would think that this autoclose feature would be quite popular with maintainers of packages that receive large numbers of spurious or duplicate bug reports. The 'moreinfo' BTS tag already exists for this purpose. If manually looking for this tag is too much work (hmm...), then a simple script could be written to find bugs with this tag that have not seen any activity in a certain amount of time. -- - mdz
Re: BTS feature?
Steve == Steve M Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve I don't follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that the Steve bug submitters will be less annoyed if the bug is closed Steve after 30 days, rather than immediately? Why would that be? Instead of forcing maintainers to keep the bug open, say for thirty days, and manually close the bug, this is done automatically. Many times, the maintainer has not bothered, and simply closed the bug immediately. In the first case, the submitter can response and say Yes, it is a bug. Here is why In the second case, the submitter must reopen the bug, and potentially get into a flamewar other if the bug should be open or closed. Or put another way, the maintainer can effectively say: if you don't respond within 30 days, I will close this bug, but without having to manually keep track of 30 days if he doesn't get any response. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BTS feature comments
About security on the BTS: Don't introduce a system with `pre-security', let's use `post-security'... what do I mean? The following: Make every action undoable and advertised, e.g.: if someone manipulates a bug in any way the maintainer gets an email. I think that that's how it's working now, so... don't touch it.. =)
Re: BTS feature comments
Previously Darren Benham wrote: - Forwarded message from Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] - | And do what... there are going to be keys that aren't in the debian keyring.. The reason I mentioned this on a bugreport was that it would be very easy to check if a signature is correct if we have the key available. From there it would be easy to make it only possible for developers to modify the BTS if we want to go that way, but right now I'm not convinced we should go that way. Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpf2DhDMwzMB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BTS feature comments
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:35:06AM -0700, Darren Benham wrote: | And do what... there are going to be keys that aren't in the debian keyring.. Non-developpers should not be allowed to *manipulate* bugs IMO. What do you think? Make me PGP/GPG/whatever sign all messages I send to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I shall become your mortal enemy : :) Next step would be signing everything sent to the BTS, then everything sent to debian-* mailing lists... please, don't. If anyone puts trash in the BTS because there is no authentication, we'll handle it. I'll even volunteer to clean it up. -- enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
BTS feature comments
What do you think? - Forwarded message from Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] - On 21/09, Darren Benham wrote: | And do what... there are going to be keys that aren't in the debian keyring.. Non-developpers should not be allowed to *manipulate* bugs IMO. - End forwarded message - pgpMQch7Kmr7I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BTS feature comments
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:35:06 -0700, Darren Benham wrote: - Forwarded message from Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Non-developpers should not be allowed to *manipulate* bugs IMO. It would be nice to have a mechanism available to ensure this if there is indeed abuse of the BTS by non-developers; so far I haven't seen it, and I see no reason e.g. to prevent users from merging bug reports when they notice something has been reported already. Ray -- LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto- destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: BTS feature comments
Darren Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do you think? well, for one, the submitter doesn't have to be a developer, and it's perfectly ok for the submitter to manipulate his bugs. I've always thought the rule only the maintainer and the submitter are allowed to close bugs to be a good one. In fact, as a submitter I've closed or reassigned bugs several times... as a maintainer, I've found some bugs have been reassigned or closed by the submitter, and I was pleased about it... On 21/09, Darren Benham wrote: | And do what... there are going to be keys that aren't in the debian keyring.. Non-developpers should not be allowed to *manipulate* bugs IMO. why would I start marking bugs in, say xfree, as fixed if I'm not the maintainer. I asked Branden about this once, and *he* asked me to submit reports to the corresponding bugs and, iirc, mark them fixed. But in that situation I had permission from the maintainer, which is a good thing. Marcelo
Re: BTS feature comments
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:35:06AM -0700, Darren Benham was heard to say: What do you think? - Forwarded message from Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] - On 21/09, Darren Benham wrote: | And do what... there are going to be keys that aren't in the debian keyring.. Non-developpers should not be allowed to *manipulate* bugs IMO. - End forwarded message - As a non-developer who has manipulated bugs.. I think that non-developers should be allowed to manipulate bugs that they are the submittors of. Several times now I've submitted bugs that either became outdated by a new release or turned out to be my own fault (eg, I reported a bug against lftp that was caused because a local install in /usr/local/bin which I had forgotten about was overriding my packaged installation in /usr/bin) but nevertheless was not closed -- in such cases, I generally send a message to (bug-num)@bugs.debian.org saying that the bug is not a bug anymore and should be closed. However, in a few cases I never got a response from the maintainer and decided to just close a bug myself. I think that I may once have reopened a bug that I reported when it was prematurely closed (that is, the maintainer closed it but I could still reproduce the problem in the supposedly fixed version), in preference to submitting a new bug report. I'm not sure about that, though. I may have just considered it. Are these shooting offenses? If so, I guess I should start keeping an eye out for the Debian Hit Squad.. :-/ Daniel -- Man is timid; he no longer says 'I think' or 'I am' but quotes some prophet or sage. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
Re: BTS feature comments
| As a non-developer who has manipulated bugs.. [...] | a bug anymore and should be closed. However, in a few cases I never got a | response from the maintainer and decided to just close a bug myself. [...] | Are these shooting offenses? If so, I guess I should start keeping an eye | out for the Debian Hit Squad.. :-/ Of course not, but only the package maintainer is supposed to close bugs on her package. Even other Debian developers should use the fixed state. If, as a non-developer, notice a bug that should be closed and have no request from the maintainer of the package, then you should ask on debian-devel that someone closes the bug, after checking that the bug does not exist anymore. And in a perfect life, all the developers should answer requests in a timely manner. Sam pgpHUjwtWVmmX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BTS feature comments
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 06:23:27PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote: Of course not, but only the package maintainer is supposed to close bugs on her package. Even other Debian developers should use the fixed state. Unless somebody's changed something while I wasn't looking, Debian accepts submitters closing bugs they've submitted, also pgpHk57qFumHr.pgp Description: PGP signature
