Re: Bugs against packages from BPO

[Ondřej Surý]

>> - from maintainers POV, would you accept that?
>
>  I've heard from very few people that would actually dislike it, but it
> would be the right way to go in so many senses.

The bugreport against the backported package at least needs to be
copied to whoever did the backport, which complicates the things. The
agreement between me and my backporters (and vice versa) is that they
are responsible for the backport.

> I think you misinterpret these release tags: Setting them on a bug
> means that the bug affects only that specific release. It happens though
> quite regularly that bugs in backports aren't backport specific but also
> affect testing/unstable, and through such an approach you would be
> hiding the bugs from that view.

That would be the backporters responsibility to check the bug and
remove/add tags as needed.

O.
-- 
Ondřej Surý 


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTimShCM=5ihkecvmSmE79qLsBK8GY3=mbionj2se...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bugs against packages from BPO

[Gerfried Fuchs]

   Hey again,

* Mehdi Dogguy  [2011-06-07 17:41:57 CEST]:
> Yes. But, one can still check and remove those tags when appropriate.
> My approach was just to avoid as much as possible to send false bugreports
> to the usual maintainer. The reporter can remove those tags if he's sure
> that it also applies to testing/unstable.

 Ah right, that was the second big issue, that the BTS can't currently
handle maintainer contact information for different "branches" of
development. Personally I would assume that the backporter should also
care about watching the bugreports in the regular pool because they also
potentially affect their endusers, but the other way round is something
that not everyone is totally interested in; and even though it might be
rather low traffic, people should at least have the possibility to
filter them out conveniently.

 Thanks for bringing that point back to my mind. :)
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los  |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110607155028.ga20...@anguilla.debian.or.at

Re: Bugs against packages from BPO

[Mehdi Dogguy]

On 07/06/2011 17:35, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> 
> I think you misinterpret these release tags:

No.

> Setting them on a bug means that the bug affects only that specific
> release. It happens though quite regularly that bugs in backports
> aren't backport specific but also affect testing/unstable, and through
> such an approach you would be hiding the bugs from that view.
> 

Yes. But, one can still check and remove those tags when appropriate.
My approach was just to avoid as much as possible to send false bugreports
to the usual maintainer. The reporter can remove those tags if he's sure
that it also applies to testing/unstable.

Thanks for your other answers on debugs.

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dee46c5.5090...@dogguy.org

Re: Bugs against packages from BPO

[Gerfried Fuchs]

   Hey,

* Mehdi Dogguy  [2011-06-07 17:02:50 CEST]:
> For now users of packages from BPO have to send a mail to
> debian-backports mailing-list, according to [1]. I don't know how you
> handle those bugs, but they seem very easy to miss (even if d-b@l.d.o
> isn't a high traffic list).

 This is correct.

> I was wondering if it makes sense to ask (kindly) debbugs's maintainer to
> add new special tags (e.g. “squeeze-backports”, “lenny-backports”) that
> would work exactly like “sid”, “squeeze”, … tags that we already have.

 I think you misinterpret these release tags: Setting them on a bug
means that the bug affects only that specific release. It happens though
quite regularly that bugs in backports aren't backport specific but also
affect testing/unstable, and through such an approach you would be
hiding the bugs from that view.

> It would help to have a better integration of BPO and makes
> bugreporting less confusing for users. When implemented in debbugs,
> reportbug could automatically add those tags if the package comes from
> BPO.

 The real issue with having backports bugs in the BTS is version
tracking: The BTS doesn't know about backports versions - and as long as
that is the case the BTS can't track bugs for backports. It's as simple
as that -- understanding-wise, unfortunately not coding-wise; otherwise
it would had been implemented in the meantime already.

 From what I understand help to get this fixed is more than just
welcomed.

> - from debbugs POV, is it feasible?

 Currently no, that's the first blocker on this road.

> - from maintainers POV, would you accept that?

 I've heard from very few people that would actually dislike it, but it
would be the right way to go in so many senses.

> - from backports FTP masters POV, do you think it's a good idea?

 I can only speak for myself (because partly I believe last time it was
brought up Alex had a different opinion on this than me), but yes, it
would be a good idea. Potentially we will manage to get a short BoF on
this topic at debconf with people from all involved parties attending to
improve this.

 But still, it needs people actually working on getting things
implemented.

> If we can't agree on this proposal, can somebody tell me why we didn't try
> to have a BTS for backports?

 Because a seperate BTS doesn't make much sense, the maintenance
overhead simply isn't that benefitial when the clean solution is to get
version tracking for backports adopted into the regular BTS.

> I personally think that we could have those bugreports on bugs.d.o
> directly and that there is no need for another instance of debbugs,
> because their number isn't insane, as most of us tend to think.

 Noone is thinking about insane numbers of bugs, at least not to the
best of my knowledge. But that's not the issue. Also you might want to
dig the archives of debian-devel from september last year, subject
"Backports service becoming official", starting at


 Enjoy!
Rhonda 
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los  |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110607153540.ga17...@anguilla.debian.or.at

Re: Bugs against packages from BPO

[Paul Wise]

I like this idea and also think that bugs reported against backports
package versions could be automatically directed towards the
backporter instead of the maintainer. First bugs.debian.org would have
to learn about backports package versions.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTimJJGBVGKQWSxKcV6MXALp1XS6R=q...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bugs against packages from BPO

[Julien Cristau]

On Tue, Jun  7, 2011 at 17:02:50 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:

> >From a maintainer point of view, this could mean more burden. But, if ever
> implemented, debbugs can send a copy of the bugreport to the backporter
> only, and avoid sending it to the usual maintainer of the package.
> 
That was discussed a while ago (shortly after bpo moved to debian.org,
iirc), and it's still vaporware.  Excuse me while I don't hold my
breath.

Cheers,
Julien


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110607150749.gc25...@coloquinte.cristau.org