subject:"\[Python\-Dev\] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker"

2008/2/21, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 Something like handle or resolved. An issue is an issue and we
  wanting a single way to say the issue was closed because what is was
  about was handled seems reasonable.

+1 to resolved.

-- 
.Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008/2/21, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

  It's possible to retire objects in Roundup: certain resolution values
  would still be present and referenced by issues that use it, but they
  would not appear anymore in the drop-down list.

We can go one step further: If we change fixed and accepted as
resolved (for example), we can change all the values directly in the
database, so they all appear as resolved now.

I don't want to propose anything specific regarding words, I'm just
saying that having eleven options to close an issue are too many if we
want to keep consistency.

Note that they're not clear enough to make them obvious, otherwise the
consensus in this thread would have been faster, ;)

Regards,

-- 
.Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008/2/22, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

  Combining 'fixed' and 'accepted' into something generic like 'resolved'
  is no good, since 'not a bug' is also a resolution from our point of
  view, even if the original author of the issue may not particularly like
  the answer :)

First two definitions of resolve from the American Heritage dict:

  1. To make a firm decision about.
  2. To cause (a person) to reach a decision.

I think it applies quite well.

Regards,

-- 
.Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Nick Coghlan

Facundo Batista wrote:
 First two definitions of resolve from the American Heritage dict:
 
   1. To make a firm decision about.
   2. To cause (a person) to reach a decision.
 
 I think it applies quite well.

It only tells you that a resolution was reached, not what that 
resolution was.

Resolution: resolved is meaningless repetition - what matters is *how* 
the issue was resolved, and simply saying 'resolved' doesn't tell 
anybody that. 'Fixed', 'accepted', 'invalid', 'rejected' , etc are 
resolutions since they give you some idea of how the issue was resolved 
- the only thing missing is a definition of just how they should be used.*

Now, dropping 'later', 'postponed' and 'remind' from the list of 
available resolutions is something I could wholeheartedly support. If we 
want to postpone something to a later release, we should put an 
appropriate entry in the version list.

My stab at definitions for the other resolutions:

   # Feature request resolutions
   accepted - feature request accepted (possibly via attached patch)
   rejected - feature request rejected

   # Bug report resolutions
   fixed - reported bug fixed (possibly via attached patch)
   invalid - reported behaviour is intentional and not a bug
   works for me - bug could not be replicated from bug report
   out of date - bug is already fixed in later Python version
   wont fix - valid bug, but not fixable in CPython (very rare)

   # Common resolutions
   duplicate - same as another issue (refer to other issue in a comment)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |   Brisbane, Australia
---
 http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Georg Brandl

Nick Coghlan schrieb:
 Facundo Batista wrote:
 First two definitions of resolve from the American Heritage dict:
 
   1. To make a firm decision about.
   2. To cause (a person) to reach a decision.
 
 I think it applies quite well.
 
 It only tells you that a resolution was reached, not what that 
 resolution was.
 
 Resolution: resolved is meaningless repetition - what matters is *how* 
 the issue was resolved, and simply saying 'resolved' doesn't tell 
 anybody that. 'Fixed', 'accepted', 'invalid', 'rejected' , etc are 
 resolutions since they give you some idea of how the issue was resolved 
 - the only thing missing is a definition of just how they should be used.*
 
 Now, dropping 'later', 'postponed' and 'remind' from the list of 
 available resolutions is something I could wholeheartedly support. If we 
 want to postpone something to a later release, we should put an 
 appropriate entry in the version list.

+1

Georg


-- 
Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less.
Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy
indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou
two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out.

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Martin v. Löwis

 We can go one step further: If we change fixed and accepted as
 resolved (for example), we can change all the values directly in the
 database, so they all appear as resolved now.
 
 I don't want to propose anything specific regarding words, I'm just
 saying that having eleven options to close an issue are too many if we
 want to keep consistency.

I'd like to point out that there is only one way to close an issue:
set it to closed state.

What you (and everybody else) here is talking about the resolution
(i.e. an indication how the issue was resolved). If you propose that 
there is only one possible resolution, namely resolved, then
wouldn't it be best to remove the resolution entirely?

 Note that they're not clear enough to make them obvious, otherwise the
 consensus in this thread would have been faster, ;)

Right. I wish this discussion had taken place before the tracker
switchover.

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Martin v. Löwis

 First two definitions of resolve from the American Heritage dict:
 
   1. To make a firm decision about.
   2. To cause (a person) to reach a decision.
 
 I think it applies quite well.

That's why the entire field is called Resolution. duplicate,
invalid, out of date, wont fix and works for me are also
firm decisions.

(later, postponed, and remind might not be firm decisions -
they were just inherited from SF).

Regards,
Martin

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Brett Cannon

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Can we make the names a little longer?

  Somebody really needs to take lead here. I won't change
  anything unless somebody tells me precisely what to do,
  so I can blame somebody. Messages like this (which I
  picked just arbitrarily) I will ignore wrt. specific
  action. Of course I *can* make the names a little
  longer - it's a thirty-second edit. The question is
  whether I should.

  Again, taking your message just arbitrarily. The same
  remark applies to anything else declared as a proposal -
  I can only act on specifications, not on proposals.

I think Martin is right that someone needs to take the lead and do a
complete review of how issues are handled. That way we can do a change
in one big batch to something that works better for Python.

I have always planned to take the lead on this, but it will have to
wait until probably Python 3.0 is out the door. If someone else wants
to go through and really look at how we handle issues and propose a
new schema that's fine by me.

-Brett
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread A.M. Kuchling

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 01:06:05PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
 I think Martin is right that someone needs to take the lead and do a
 complete review of how issues are handled. That way we can do a change
 in one big batch to something that works better for Python.

Are we, as a development community, really running into problems with
how we handle bugs?  There are certainly small cleanups possible, such
as dropping the 'postponed' and 'later' resolutions that we don't seem
to use very much, but the flow seems reasonably efficient to me.

I suggest just updating PEP 3 to actually describe the life cycle we
currently follow.

--amk
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Brett Cannon

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Facundo Batista
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 2008/2/22, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


   I think Martin is right that someone needs to take the lead and do a
complete review of how issues are handled. That way we can do a change
in one big batch to something that works better for Python.

  +1

  What about a couple of hours in the Python Core sprinting in a month?
  I won't be there (in that specific sprint), but I trust your decision.

Maybe. Could possibly take an hour or so after a lunch and just have
everyone at the sprint give feedback or something.

But my personal priorities for the sprint is being a good sprint coach
first, and finish getting my bootstrap of my import rewrite second.

-Brett
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Brett Cannon

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:28 PM, A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 01:06:05PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
   I think Martin is right that someone needs to take the lead and do a
   complete review of how issues are handled. That way we can do a change
   in one big batch to something that works better for Python.

  Are we, as a development community, really running into problems with
  how we handle bugs?  There are certainly small cleanups possible, such
  as dropping the 'postponed' and 'later' resolutions that we don't seem
  to use very much, but the flow seems reasonably efficient to me.


It's reasonable, but I wonder if it could be better. I am not sure as
I have not had that much time to sit down and really think it through.
I do know, though, that I like how Django has it structured:
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/contributing/#ticket-triage
.

-Brett
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008/2/22, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 I think Martin is right that someone needs to take the lead and do a
  complete review of how issues are handled. That way we can do a change
  in one big batch to something that works better for Python.

+1

What about a couple of hours in the Python Core sprinting in a month?
I won't be there (in that specific sprint), but I trust your decision.

Regards,

-- 
.Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull

Martin v. Löwis writes:

  That's why the entire field is called Resolution. duplicate,
  invalid, out of date, wont fix and works for me are also
  firm decisions.
  
  (later, postponed, and remind might not be firm decisions -
  they were just inherited from SF).

These latter three are not resolutions, and IMO should be removed.
Items with those resolutions should be considered still active (or
perhaps pending auto-closure).

Specifically, the name field of the corresponding items in the
relevant class should be edited so that in legacy issues containing
them they are displayed as - not yet resolved - or - no selection -.
(I'm not sure it's wise, or even possible, for multiple items to have
identical names, though.  If not, they can be uniquified in some way.)

Then these items should be retired so that they won't appear at all in
menus.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Christian Heimes

A.M. Kuchling wrote:
 Are we, as a development community, really running into problems with
 how we handle bugs?  There are certainly small cleanups possible, such
 as dropping the 'postponed' and 'later' resolutions that we don't seem
 to use very much, but the flow seems reasonably efficient to me.

We have over 1,700 open issues - bug reports, feature requests and
patches - in our bug tracker. In my humble opinion it's a sure sign for
a problem.

Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread A.M. Kuchling

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 01:55:06AM +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
 We have over 1,700 open issues - bug reports, feature requests and
 patches - in our bug tracker. In my humble opinion it's a sure sign for
 a problem.

Sure, but is that because the bug life cycle is sub-optimal, or
because we don't have enough people handling bugs?  

I think for a long time we haven't been actively recruiting new
developers, and the pool of people with commit privileges remained
about the same.  Some committers go away, and some get caught up in
other projects, so the number of people who actually do work is much
smaller.  I think that's the primary problem to solve, and the bug
life cycle is much less significant.

I'm not against changing the bug cycle, just doubtful that changing it
will be a magic bullet for reducing the size of our backlog.

--amk
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-22 Thread Martin v. Löwis

 We have over 1,700 open issues - bug reports, feature requests and
 patches - in our bug tracker. In my humble opinion it's a sure sign for
 a problem.

As a historical record: people said the same thing when there were 500 
and 1000 open issues. 5 years from now, when we have 5000 open issues,
you will look back to the good old days when we were below 2000 :-)

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-21 Thread Guido van Rossum

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Virgil Dupras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 2/21/08, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- no selection -118
wont fix189
works for me62
accepted310
fixed   611
duplicate   75
later   17
invalid 73
postponed   6
out of date 193
remind  1
rejected180

  Thanks for running it. The rate is better than I expected, so I was
  wrong in my assumption.

  What would be the difference between accepted and fixed for a closed ticket?

I don't know what others do, but I use accepted for a patch submission
and fixed for a bug report.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-21 Thread Facundo Batista

2008/2/20, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

  - no selection -118
  wont fix189
  works for me62
  accepted310
  fixed   611
  duplicate   75
  later   17
  invalid 73
  postponed   6
  out of date 193
  remind  1
  rejected180

This is the result for the open status issues? I guess not, because
the rejected, fixed, etc, should be closed.

Could you run this again, please, but filtering by open tickets?

Thanks!

-- 
.Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-21 Thread A.M. Kuchling

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:59:51AM +0100, Virgil Dupras wrote:
 Thanks for running it. The rate is better than I expected, so I was
 wrong in my assumption.
 
 What would be the difference between accepted and fixed for a closed ticket?

'accepted' is probably used more for patches, while 'fixed' is more
likely to be used for a bug report.

--amk
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-21 Thread Steve Holden

Guido van Rossum wrote:
 On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Virgil Dupras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 2/21/08, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- no selection -118
wont fix189
works for me62
accepted310
fixed   611
duplicate   75
later   17
invalid 73
postponed   6
out of date 193
remind  1
rejected180

  Thanks for running it. The rate is better than I expected, so I was
  wrong in my assumption.

  What would be the difference between accepted and fixed for a closed ticket?
 
 I don't know what others do, but I use accepted for a patch submission
 and fixed for a bug report.
 
That sounds eminently sensible. So sensible there should be 
documentation that tells us to do that. Drat it, where's Brett Cannon 
when you need him? :-)

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC  http://www.holdenweb.com/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-21 Thread Facundo Batista

2008/2/21, Virgil Dupras [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 I don't see why would want to run this query on open tickets. What
  would it tell you? How many old issue there is? You can already know
  that with a simple search. The goal of this script is to know the
  resolution of tickets that had a 6+ month gap in their activity.

In the context of what to do with RFEs (my original question), if keep
them in the tracker, or removing them from there and putting them in
the PEP, I want to see this distribution in the actually opened
tickets (as they're disturbed or not by the RFEs).

Regards,

-- 
.Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-21 Thread Gregory P. Smith

On 2/21/08, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Guido van Rossum wrote:
  On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Virgil Dupras [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

   What would be the difference between accepted and fixed for a closed
 ticket?
 
  I don't know what others do, but I use accepted for a patch submission
  and fixed for a bug report.
 

 That sounds eminently sensible. So sensible there should be
 documentation that tells us to do that. Drat it, where's Brett Cannon
 when you need him? :-)


I'm always faced with a tiny quandry when closing a fixed bug that had a
patch to fix it attached because both seem to apply.  ;-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-21 Thread Virgil Dupras

On 2/21/08, Facundo Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is the result for the open status issues? I guess not, because
  the rejected, fixed, etc, should be closed.

  Could you run this again, please, but filtering by open tickets?

I don't see why would want to run this query on open tickets. What
would it tell you? How many old issue there is? You can already know
that with a simple search. The goal of this script is to know the
resolution of tickets that had a 6+ month gap in their activity.

Virgil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-21 Thread Facundo Batista

2008/2/21, Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

  That sounds eminently sensible. So sensible there should be
  documentation that tells us to do that. Drat it, where's Brett Cannon
  when you need him? :-)

 I'm always faced with a tiny quandry when closing a fixed bug that had a
 patch to fix it attached because both seem to apply.  ;-)

Yeap, and I'm sure I ave a % of wrongly marked issues when closing, :p.

Anyway, if a patch, and a bug, and a RFE, etc, are all issues, IMHO
is cluttering the fact that we have two or three denominations to
this issue was ok and we executed the proper actions to close it.

Everything in this aspect would be simpler if we have one word for
what I just meant.

Regards,

-- 
.Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-21 Thread Martin v. Löwis

 Everything in this aspect would be simpler if we have one word for
 what I just meant.

If you think it should be fixed, please submit a report in the meta
tracker, ideally specifying precisely how you want to see it changed.

It's possible to retire objects in Roundup: certain resolution values
would still be present and referenced by issues that use it, but they
would not appear anymore in the drop-down list.

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-20 Thread Quentin Gallet-Gilles

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Martin v. Löwis wrote:
  What's wrong with the rfe type? Why does it have to be a keyword?

 For one it's the name. Personally I didn't know the meaning of RFE until
 I googled it.


I agree, the name is a bit confusing when you're not used to it.
Also I find that, by definition, RFE and feature requests are not exactly
the same. There's a thin line between a new feature and an enhancement that
is supposed to fill a gap/improve things. Should they really be treated the
same way ?

Quentin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-20 Thread Nick Coghlan

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
 Problem is, we don't have an 'rfe' keyword anymore :)

 Shall we grow one again?
 
 What's wrong with the rfe type? Why does it have to be a keyword?

It must have changed since I last looked at a feature request on the 
tracker - using a type rather than keyword is fine by me.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |   Brisbane, Australia
---
 http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

 I agree, the name is a bit confusing when you're not used to it.

Renaming it is easy. To the native speakers reading it: What should
it be called? (please try to come up with something shorter than
request for enhancement)

 Also I find that, by definition, RFE and feature requests are not 
 exactly the same. There's a thin line between a new feature and an 
 enhancement that is supposed to fill a gap/improve things. Should they 
 really be treated the same way ?

I don't understand the difference. Can you please explain it? Are there
features that are not enhancements (and if so, why would anybody request
them), or are there enhancements which are not features? Are they 
entirely disjoint sets of things?

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-20 Thread Guido van Rossum

On Feb 20, 2008 12:39 PM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Feb 20, 2008 12:36 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   I agree, the name is a bit confusing when you're not used to it.
 
  Renaming it is easy. To the native speakers reading it: What should
  it be called? (please try to come up with something shorter than
  request for enhancement)

 feature request?

+1

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-20 Thread Raghuram Devarakonda

   Renaming it is easy. To the native speakers reading it: What should
   it be called? (please try to come up with something shorter than
   request for enhancement)
  

  feature request?

How about calling it just enhancement?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

 It must have changed since I last looked at a feature request on the 
 tracker - using a type rather than keyword is fine by me.

I'm fairly certain the rfe type was there ever since the switchover
(at least that's what subversion says: the rfe type was added along
with all other types in r52825, on 2006-11-23).

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-20 Thread Brett Cannon

On Feb 20, 2008 12:36 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I agree, the name is a bit confusing when you're not used to it.

 Renaming it is easy. To the native speakers reading it: What should
 it be called? (please try to come up with something shorter than
 request for enhancement)


feature request?

  Also I find that, by definition, RFE and feature requests are not
  exactly the same. There's a thin line between a new feature and an
  enhancement that is supposed to fill a gap/improve things. Should they
  really be treated the same way ?

 I don't understand the difference. Can you please explain it? Are there
 features that are not enhancements (and if so, why would anybody request
 them), or are there enhancements which are not features? Are they
 entirely disjoint sets of things?


The differences are so minimal that it feels like squabbling over
minute semantics.

-Brett
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

Guido van Rossum wrote:
 On Feb 20, 2008 12:39 PM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Feb 20, 2008 12:36 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I agree, the name is a bit confusing when you're not used to it.
 Renaming it is easy. To the native speakers reading it: What should
 it be called? (please try to come up with something shorter than
 request for enhancement)
 feature request?

I already had it at enhancement :-)

In any case, by BDFL pronouncement, it's feature request now.

http://bugs.python.org/issue_type6

(as an aside - can anybody tell me how to suppress link/unlink
notifications in the history of each issue_type? I don't think
we need them (unlike the reverse link's history, i.e. the
history of the issue's type field))


Regards,
Martin

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-20 Thread Quentin Gallet-Gilles

I consider a feature request something like asking a factorial method (
http://bugs.python.org/issue2138). As for the RFE, (from Wikipedia) while
not technically a bug, it is often tracked in the same manner as a bug as it
represents a failure to meet expected behavior, or simply out of
convenience.

But on second thought, I realize I'm really splitting hairs here. It's not
worth treating them separately, I'm perfectly fine with the feature
request type :-)

Quentin


On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  I agree, the name is a bit confusing when you're not used to it.

 Renaming it is easy. To the native speakers reading it: What should
 it be called? (please try to come up with something shorter than
 request for enhancement)

  Also I find that, by definition, RFE and feature requests are not
  exactly the same. There's a thin line between a new feature and an
  enhancement that is supposed to fill a gap/improve things. Should they
  really be treated the same way ?

 I don't understand the difference. Can you please explain it? Are there
 features that are not enhancements (and if so, why would anybody request
 them), or are there enhancements which are not features? Are they
 entirely disjoint sets of things?

 Regards,
 Martin

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker


Virgil Dupras wrote:

On 2/19/08, Virgil Dupras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

closed_status = db.status.lookup('chatting')


Oops, replace 'chatting' with 'closed'


Ok, I ran the script. It said

Low activity tickets (180 days) broken down per resolution status:

- no selection -547
wont fix423
works for me194
accepted1233
fixed   2257
duplicate   176
later   49
invalid 275
postponed   20
out of date 304
remind  5
rejected448

Attached is the updated script.

Notice that a day has more than 3600 seconds. With

if date2.differenceDate(date1).as_seconds() = ACTIVITY_DAY_THRESHOLD * 
24 * 3600


it gives

- no selection -118
wont fix189
works for me62
accepted310
fixed   611
duplicate   75
later   17
invalid 73
postponed   6
out of date 193
remind  1
rejected180


Regards,
Martin
#!/usr/bin/env python

# I'm building this out of a demo db of roundup, and it doesn't have a
# Resolution, so I'm doing guesswork here. It shouldn't be very hard
# to modify the script to fit the python db.
PATH_TO_TRACKER = '.'
ACTIVITY_DAY_THRESHOLD = 180

import roundup.instance

def has_large_activity_gap(issue, db):
for first, second in zip(issue.messages, issue.messages[1:]):
date1 = db.msg.getnode(first).date
date2 = db.msg.getnode(second).date
if date2.differenceDate(date1).as_seconds() = ACTIVITY_DAY_THRESHOLD * 3600:
return True
return False

tracker = roundup.instance.Tracker(PATH_TO_TRACKER)
db = tracker.open()
closed_status = db.status.lookup('closed')
resolution2count = {None:0}
for resolution_id in db.resolution.getnodeids():
resolution2count[resolution_id] = 0
closed_issues = (db.issue.getnode(issue_id) for issue_id in db.issue.find(status=closed_status))
low_activity_issues = (issue for issue in closed_issues if has_large_activity_gap(issue, db))
for issue in low_activity_issues:
resolution2count[issue.resolution] += 1
print 'Low activity tickets (%d days) broken down per resolution status:' % ACTIVITY_DAY_THRESHOLD
print
for resolution_id, count in resolution2count.items():
if resolution_id is None:
resolution = - no selection -
else:
resolution = db.resolution.getnode(resolution_id).name
print '%s\t%d' % (resolution, count)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-19 Thread Virgil Dupras

On 2/19/08, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  No, I don't, which is why I would find it interesting to run some
  queries on the roundup database to have completion statistics for low
  activity tickets. Is is possible to get a copy of that db somehow?

 I would rather not make it available, as it contains certain
 privacy-related information that we need to withhold. If you provide
 some SQL statement or Python script that you want me to run on the
 server - that should be possible.

Hum, Roundup has a rather nice little API to it's issues. Here we go.
It would be nice to have stats for 360 days as well.

#!/usr/bin/env python
# I'm building this out of a demo db of roundup, and it doesn't have a
Resolution, so
# I'm doing guesswork here. It shouldn't be very hard to modify the
script to fit the
# python db.
PATH_TO_TRACKER = 'demo'
ACTIVITY_DAY_THRESHOLD = 180

import roundup.instance

def has_large_activity_gap(issue, db):
for first, second in zip(issue.messages, issue.messages[1:]):
date1 = db.msg.getnode(first).date
date2 = db.msg.getnode(second).date
if date2.differenceDate(date1).as_seconds() =
ACTIVITY_DAY_THRESHOLD * 3600:
return True
return False

tracker = roundup.instance.Tracker(PATH_TO_TRACKER)
db = tracker.open()
closed_status = db.status.lookup('chatting')
resolution2count = {}
for resolution_id in db.resolution.getnodeids():
resolution2count[resolution_id] = 0
closed_issues = (db.issue.getnode(issue_id) for issue_id in
db.issue.find(status=closed_status))
low_activity_issues = (issue for issue in closed_issues if
has_large_activity_gap(issue, db))
for issue in low_activity_issues:
resolution2count[issue.resolution] += 1
print 'Low activity tickets (%d days) broken down per resolution
status:' % ACTIVITY_DAY_THRESHOLD
print
for resolution_id, count in resolution2count.items():
resolution = db.resolution.getnode(resolution_id)
print '%s\t%d' % (resolution.name, count)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-19 Thread Nick Coghlan

Christian Heimes wrote:
 Steve Holden wrote:
 There there's the Status field. I understand open and closed, but 
 what's the semantic of pending. Is it awaiting triage, awaiting status 
 assignment, or what?
 
 I've used pending for two states. For one I've put an issue on pending
 state when it was fixed on the trunk but we haven't decided if the bugs
 needs to be fixed in 2.5 as well. I've also set old bugs as pending to
 give the op a change to reopen the bug within a month.

I've used pending for the former case as well (i.e. when I wanted a 
verdict from the release manager on whether or not to backport a 
particular fix to 2.5, but didn't want the issue hanging around as open 
when I had already fixed it for the trunk).

We really do need to write some of this down in an information track PEP 
so we're all using the same values to mean the same thing...

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |   Brisbane, Australia
---
 http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-19 Thread Guido van Rossum

On Feb 19, 2008 12:22 PM, Facundo Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 2008/2/19, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

  Problem is, we don't have an 'rfe' keyword anymore :)

 Shall we grow one again?

Isn't the RFE type field enough?

 What would happen with PEP 42? will it be deprecated?

I think it wasn't experiment that doesn't seem to have worked all that well.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-19 Thread Martin v. Löwis

 We really do need to write some of this down in an information track PEP 
 so we're all using the same values to mean the same thing...

There is actually an official meaning to pending: An issue marked 
pending will get automatically closed by the tracker after some period
of time (which used to be two weeks on SF). The tracker will add a 
message that the issue was closed because of inactivity.

Unfortunately, that feature is not yet implemented.

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-19 Thread Martin v. Löwis

 Problem is, we don't have an 'rfe' keyword anymore :)

 
 Shall we grow one again?

What's wrong with the rfe type? Why does it have to be a keyword?

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-19 Thread Facundo Batista

2008/2/19, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

  Problem is, we don't have an 'rfe' keyword anymore :)
 
  Shall we grow one again?

 What's wrong with the rfe type? Why does it have to be a keyword?

For me, none. I'm just trying to converge the mail thread to a result, :)

As far as I can see, the place to keep a RFE is the Issue tracker, and
in the future we should decide if we deprecate the PEP 42 and move
those items to the tracker.

Regards,

-- 
.Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-19 Thread Fred Drake

On Feb 18, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
 A bug tracker is a much better way of registering such information.  
 It also
 can be easier referenced in the future since even though when it is  
 closed,
 the debate and other stuff will remain in the tracker's tickets for
 posterity. :)

 PEP: -1
 tracker: +1


I agree with Jeroen completely on this.  Using a PEP for this is just  
plain silly.


   -Fred

-- 
Fred Drake   fdrake at acm.org




___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Facundo Batista

Hi!

Don't now if always, or in the last few months where I've been
following the issues more closely, but I found that are appearing a
lot of small RFEs in the tracker.

These normally are small but not trivial things. In most cases when I
read them I think Mmm, yes... it won't hurt to have it, but it's not
so important, and definitively not my itch to scratch. See, for
example, this [1] one, that ask for a factorial method in the
integers.

Normally these RFEs stay there for a long time, unless they're clearly
negative, because they don't raise any discussion.

OTOH, we have a PEP for feature requests [2]. I quote part of it:


This PEP was created to allow us to close bug reports that are really
feature requests.  Marked as Open, they distract from the list of real
bugs (which should ideally be less than a page).  Marked as Closed, they
tend to be forgotten.  The procedure now is:  if a bug report is really
a feature request, add the feature request to this PEP; mark the bug as
feature request, later, and closed; and add a comment to the bug
saying that this is the case (mentioning the PEP explicitly).


This is still valid? Should we start moving RFEs to this PEP and
closing their issues in the tracker?

Or should we try to get more discussion regarding these RFEs? Maybe,
for example, a weekly digest where the latests RFEs added are sent to
python-dev, so we can actually say no way and close them, or say
nice and *then* moving them to the PEP (this has the risk of nobody
saying anything, and to stay in the same position as before).

What do you think? Opinions?

Thank you very much!

Regards,

[1] http://bugs.python.org/issue2138
[2] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0042/

-- 
.Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

On 2/18/08, Facundo Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi!

 Don't now if always, or in the last few months where I've been
 following the issues more closely, but I found that are appearing a
 lot of small RFEs in the tracker.

 These normally are small but not trivial things. In most cases when I
 read them I think Mmm, yes... it won't hurt to have it, but it's not
 so important, and definitively not my itch to scratch. See, for
 example, this [1] one, that ask for a factorial method in the
 integers.

 Normally these RFEs stay there for a long time, unless they're clearly
 negative, because they don't raise any discussion.

 OTOH, we have a PEP for feature requests [2]. I quote part of it:

 
 This PEP was created to allow us to close bug reports that are really
 feature requests.  Marked as Open, they distract from the list of real
 bugs (which should ideally be less than a page).  Marked as Closed, they
 tend to be forgotten.  The procedure now is:  if a bug report is really
 a feature request, add the feature request to this PEP; mark the bug as
 feature request, later, and closed; and add a comment to the bug
 saying that this is the case (mentioning the PEP explicitly).
 

 This is still valid? Should we start moving RFEs to this PEP and
 closing their issues in the tracker?

 Or should we try to get more discussion regarding these RFEs? Maybe,
 for example, a weekly digest where the latests RFEs added are sent to
 python-dev, so we can actually say no way and close them, or say
 nice and *then* moving them to the PEP (this has the risk of nobody
 saying anything, and to stay in the same position as before).

 What do you think? Opinions?

 Thank you very much!

 Regards,

 [1] http://bugs.python.org/issue2138
 [2] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0042/

 --
 .Facundo

 Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
 PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
 ___
 Python-Dev mailing list
 Python-Dev@python.org
 http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
 Unsubscribe: 
 http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/hsoft%40hardcoded.net


Personally, I think that a bug tracker is a good place to keep RFE,
not a PEP. I think that the PEP would tend to be cluttered with RFE
nobody cares about forever. So the clutter can never be cleaned unless
someone takes the responsibility to mercilessly remove them.

What I really think should be done is first to get rid of all these 8+
months old issues, and then have a kind of system that after 8 months,
an issue goes back in dying mode where it surfaces back with a
message Does anyone have any reason to believe this issue should
still be alive? If there is no answer after a week, the issue is
closed.

--
Virgil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven

-On [20080218 13:38], Virgil Dupras ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Personally, I think that a bug tracker is a good place to keep RFE,
not a PEP. I think that the PEP would tend to be cluttered with RFE
nobody cares about forever. So the clutter can never be cleaned unless
someone takes the responsibility to mercilessly remove them.

A bug tracker is a much better way of registering such information. It also
can be easier referenced in the future since even though when it is closed,
the debate and other stuff will remain in the tracker's tickets for
posterity. :)

PEP: -1
tracker: +1

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/
But Time, keeps flowing like a river (on and on)...
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Amaury Forgeot d'Arc

Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
 -On [20080218 13:38], Virgil Dupras ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 Personally, I think that a bug tracker is a good place to keep RFE,
 not a PEP. I think that the PEP would tend to be cluttered with RFE
 nobody cares about forever. So the clutter can never be cleaned unless
 someone takes the responsibility to mercilessly remove them.

 A bug tracker is a much better way of registering such information. It also
 can be easier referenced in the future since even though when it is closed,
 the debate and other stuff will remain in the tracker's tickets for
 posterity. :)

 PEP: -1
 tracker: +1

I agree. Then we can set some status/keyword when the subject of a RFE
is accepted by core developers, saying if someone proposes a patch,
it has a chance to be reviewed and applied.
It may incite occasional contributors to work on some of these tasks,
confident that their work will not be thrown away in two seconds.

-- 
Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Brett Cannon

On Feb 18, 2008 11:11 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
  -On [20080218 13:38], Virgil Dupras ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
  Personally, I think that a bug tracker is a good place to keep RFE,
  not a PEP. I think that the PEP would tend to be cluttered with RFE
  nobody cares about forever. So the clutter can never be cleaned unless
  someone takes the responsibility to mercilessly remove them.
 
  A bug tracker is a much better way of registering such information. It also
  can be easier referenced in the future since even though when it is closed,
  the debate and other stuff will remain in the tracker's tickets for
  posterity. :)
 
  PEP: -1
  tracker: +1

 I agree. Then we can set some status/keyword when the subject of a RFE
 is accepted by core developers, saying if someone proposes a patch,
 it has a chance to be reviewed and applied.
 It may incite occasional contributors to work on some of these tasks,
 confident that their work will not be thrown away in two seconds.

My issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker as they are is that it
artificially inflates the open issue count. Python does not have over
1,700 open bugs.

So I have no issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker, at some point
I do want to change how they are represnted so that they are a
separate things from issues representing bugs and patches.

-Brett
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven

-On [20080218 21:41], Brett Cannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker as they are is that it
artificially inflates the open issue count. Python does not have over
1,700 open bugs.

An issue does not necessarily mean the same as bug. :)

Is it a bug tracker you have or an issue tracker? If the former, agreed, if
the latter then it makes sense to track RFEs in the tracker.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/
And every word upon your spiralling cross is but a misled sun, a bitter
 loss...
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

On 2/18/08, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Feb 18, 2008 11:11 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
   -On [20080218 13:38], Virgil Dupras ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
   Personally, I think that a bug tracker is a good place to keep RFE,
   not a PEP. I think that the PEP would tend to be cluttered with RFE
   nobody cares about forever. So the clutter can never be cleaned unless
   someone takes the responsibility to mercilessly remove them.
  
   A bug tracker is a much better way of registering such information. It 
   also
   can be easier referenced in the future since even though when it is 
   closed,
   the debate and other stuff will remain in the tracker's tickets for
   posterity. :)
  
   PEP: -1
   tracker: +1
 
  I agree. Then we can set some status/keyword when the subject of a RFE
  is accepted by core developers, saying if someone proposes a patch,
  it has a chance to be reviewed and applied.
  It may incite occasional contributors to work on some of these tasks,
  confident that their work will not be thrown away in two seconds.

 My issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker as they are is that it
 artificially inflates the open issue count. Python does not have over
 1,700 open bugs.

 So I have no issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker, at some point
 I do want to change how they are represnted so that they are a
 separate things from issues representing bugs and patches.

 -Brett

Which is why I propose to have a mechanism to close bugs and RFE
nobody cares about. over *1000* out of those 1700 open issues are 6+
months old.

Virgil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Steve Holden

Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
-On [20080218 21:41], Brett Cannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker as they are is that it
artificially inflates the open issue count. Python does not have over
1,700 open bugs.

An issue does not necessarily mean the same as bug. :)

Is it a bug tracker you have or an issue tracker? If the former, agreed, if
the latter then it makes sense to track RFEs in the tracker.

Certainly, but since some issues *are* bugs we might need to refine our
analysis somewhat. It would be better to have a bug report which omitted
issues of type rfe. As far as I can see open issues of all other types
would be properly classified as bugs.

There there's the Status field. I understand open and closed, but
what's the semantic of pending. Is it awaiting triage, awaiting status
assignment, or what?

I quite like Django's triage stage, see

http://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=newstatus=assignedstatus=reopenedgroup=stageorder=priority

The stages availabele appear to be Accepted, Someday/Maybe, Design
decision needed, Ready for checkin and Unreviewed. OK. maybe
triage wasn't such a good name for for a four-state condition, but it
serves a useful purpose and helps people understand what the ultimate
fate of issues they raise might be.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Gregory P. Smith

  
   PEP: -1
   tracker: +1
 
  I agree. Then we can set some status/keyword when the subject of a RFE
  is accepted by core developers, saying if someone proposes a patch,
  it has a chance to be reviewed and applied.
  It may incite occasional contributors to work on some of these tasks,
  confident that their work will not be thrown away in two seconds.

 My issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker as they are is that it
 artificially inflates the open issue count. Python does not have over
 1,700 open bugs.

 So I have no issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker, at some point
 I do want to change how they are represnted so that they are a
 separate things from issues representing bugs and patches.

 -Brett


Sure but thats merely a tracker problem.  Change your count to bugs not
marked as a rfe / feature-request and you've got your real count.  Tracker
entries for rfes are much better than a languid document.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Steve Holden

Virgil Dupras wrote:
 On 2/18/08, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
 So I have no issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker, at some point
 I do want to change how they are represnted so that they are a
 separate things from issues representing bugs and patches.

 -Brett
 
 Which is why I propose to have a mechanism to close bugs and RFE
 nobody cares about. over *1000* out of those 1700 open issues are 6+
 months old.
 
I'm not sure we should be throwing RFE's away with such casual abandon 
just because nobody had time to pay them any attention in six months - 
nor bugs neither, come to that.

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC  http://www.holdenweb.com/

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Georg Brandl

Steve Holden schrieb:
 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
 -On [20080218 21:41], Brett Cannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 My issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker as they are is that it
 artificially inflates the open issue count. Python does not have over
 1,700 open bugs.
 
 An issue does not necessarily mean the same as bug. :)
 
 Is it a bug tracker you have or an issue tracker? If the former, agreed, if
 the latter then it makes sense to track RFEs in the tracker.
 
 Certainly, but since some issues *are* bugs we might need to refine our 
 analysis somewhat. It would be better to have a bug report which omitted 
 issues of type rfe. As far as I can see open issues of all other types 
 would be properly classified as bugs.
 
 There there's the Status field. I understand open and closed, but 
 what's the semantic of pending. Is it awaiting triage, awaiting status 
 assignment, or what?

It's a leftover from SF.net. There it had the feature that pending items
were closed automatically after two weeks if no further activity took
place.

For the new tracker, we should really decide about a pending policy,
or implement the feature too.

Georg

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Steve Holden

Virgil Dupras wrote:
 On 2/18/08, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I'm not sure we should be throwing RFE's away with such casual abandon
 just because nobody had time to pay them any attention in six months -
 nor bugs neither, come to that.
 
 Well, we have to evaluate the chances of our older tickets to come to
 completion. I'm of the opinion that ticket getting older have very
 small chances of ever being completed. RFE for python 2.4 are likely
 to be irrelevant. old bugs are likely to already be fixed. Maybe we
 could run a statistical analysis to compute the chances of a ticket
 that have seen no activity for 8 months to ever be successfully
 completed? How many successful tickets to we have that had a 8+ months
 gap between activity? Or maybe we could just clean out the 400 tickets
 that are 2+ years old? What are the chances for a 2 years old ticket
 to be completed?
 
But the decision shouldn't be made on the age of the ticket, rather on 
the (continued?) validity of the information it contains.

I appreciate the desire to keep the issue tracker clean, but I think 
human intelligence needs to be applied to the task, not just a 
date-based cutoff.

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC  http://www.holdenweb.com/

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

On 2/18/08, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I'm not sure we should be throwing RFE's away with such casual abandon
 just because nobody had time to pay them any attention in six months -
 nor bugs neither, come to that.

Well, we have to evaluate the chances of our older tickets to come to
completion. I'm of the opinion that ticket getting older have very
small chances of ever being completed. RFE for python 2.4 are likely
to be irrelevant. old bugs are likely to already be fixed. Maybe we
could run a statistical analysis to compute the chances of a ticket
that have seen no activity for 8 months to ever be successfully
completed? How many successful tickets to we have that had a 8+ months
gap between activity? Or maybe we could just clean out the 400 tickets
that are 2+ years old? What are the chances for a 2 years old ticket
to be completed?

-- 
Virgil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Martin v. Löwis

 This is still valid? Should we start moving RFEs to this PEP and
 closing their issues in the tracker?

As other have indicated - PEP 42 was a mistake (IMO).

 Or should we try to get more discussion regarding these RFEs? Maybe,
 for example, a weekly digest where the latests RFEs added are sent to
 python-dev, so we can actually say no way and close them, or say
 nice and *then* moving them to the PEP (this has the risk of nobody
 saying anything, and to stay in the same position as before).
 
 What do you think? Opinions?

If you think this could help, sure, but I doubt it would.

I personally don't worry about these. If you don't want to see them,
filter them out (roundup is very good at custom searches).

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker

2008-02-18 Thread Martin v. Löwis

 Well, we have to evaluate the chances of our older tickets to come to
 completion. I'm of the opinion that ticket getting older have very
 small chances of ever being completed. RFE for python 2.4 are likely
 to be irrelevant.

Do you have any facts to base this theory on?

Two years for a bug report is *nothing*. Ten years, and I would start
to worry that it might never get implemented.

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Small RFEs and the Bug Tracker