Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I suspect that eight people is nowhere near enough people. Maybe
I could join...
Please do! Adrian Bunk posted a proposal a month or so ago for QA
organization in the future, containing a good summary of the kinds of
things people can work on.
On 29 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I suspect that eight people is nowhere near enough people. Maybe
I could join...
Please do! Adrian Bunk posted a proposal a month or so ago for QA
organization in the future, containing a good
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Wolfe) writes:
Actualy, I believe that the mkisofs maintainer should have seen that a
new option was created and notified the maintainers of anything that
depended on mkisofs ...
That's pushing it, I think. I've had several experiences as a maintainer
where
This is why I labeled it as if it were me. Of course I tend to
take a harder view of whats the programmers responsibilities when releasing
a package than most people. Maybe it has to do with my overbuilt sense of
getting things done right and not being blamed for breaks too frequesntly.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 11:07:20PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Um, if it doesn't work for the version of mkisofs in woody, then it is
a critical bug as far as woody is concerned.
That may be true. But someone who has potato installed, and does a
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:02:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Seems to me that we came up with a solution for this problem a while
ago: the Debian QA team. Right now it has eight people, and an
overwhelming workload.
You both exaggerate and understate things here.
cause the package to fail more and more in more common usage. Debian updated
it's version of mkisofs, and thus IT broke CDRToaster. As such this is now in
I wonder how this could happen in the first place: if CDRToaster
depended properly on mkisofs version = whatever, then upgrading
mkisofs
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:02:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Maybe we need a way to make being on the QA team a sexy job, just like
maintaining glibc or the kernel or X is.
Eh? In my experience the maintainers of these packages get nothing but
grief, sometimes from each other. :)
--
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 05:44:38AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
[Discussing removal of bitrotted packages]
Usually we only get involved in discussions like this for orphaned
packages, at least so far.
Back when the committee was alive it (or at least some members of it)
did do some stuff along
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 04:14:46PM +0200, Juha Jäykkä wrote:
I wonder how this could happen in the first place: if CDRToaster
depended properly on mkisofs version = whatever, then upgrading
mkisofs should remove CDRToaster.
Why should CDRToaster expect mkisofs to randomly change its
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 04:24:06PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 04:14:46PM +0200, Juha J?ykk? wrote:
I wonder how this could happen in the first place: if CDRToaster
depended properly on mkisofs version = whatever, then upgrading
mkisofs should remove CDRToaster.
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Maybe we need a way to make being on the QA team a sexy job, just like
maintaining glibc or the kernel or X is.
What about dpkg or apt?
Duly chastined. :) I discovered a few minutes ago (thanks to a friend
that is d-d) that I can in fact join the debian-devel list. So I am now lurking
to read and reply. :)
I'll reply in a few minutes to the other email. :)
Brian
Heh, I was not aware that a non-developer could subscribe to d-d.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 08:41:54AM +, David Graham wrote:
SNIP
Nice bait I'll bite, but if you want to read it you'll have to
subscribe... It's not fair to throw the rock and hide the hand
1) learn how to
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 08:40:52AM +, David Graham wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For some time now there has been an increasing trend in people that
I know who use debian. It is the view that debian is becoming
increasingly old/outdated, and that
Damn, I didn't want to post here anymore, but looks like I need to add
some points. :-(
On 26/12/01, Brian Wolfe wrote:
Heh, I was not aware that a non-developer could subscribe to d-d.
Looking at http://lists.debian.org and reading the list description
would have told you that before.
Brian, I understand your complaints. It bugs me, too, to find
software not maintained well. We are volunteers, though, and as you
realize, it takes a lot of time to do this, and so it happens, on
occasion that someone just can't keep up. I don't think it's really
fair of people to tell you
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:07:57PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
As was stated elsewhere, the best way you can make a meaningful
contribution is to file bugs that are higher level than normal, in
order to draw attention to broken packages.
Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:07:57PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
Brian, I understand your complaints. It bugs me, too, to find
software not maintained well. We are volunteers, though, and as you
realize, it takes a lot of time to do this, and so it happens, on
occasion that someone just
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:07:57PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
As was stated elsewhere, the best way you can make a meaningful
contribution is to file bugs that are higher level than
normal, in order to draw attention to broken packages.
Oh
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:26:50PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:07:57PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
As was stated elsewhere, the best way you can make a meaningful
contribution is to file bugs that are higher level
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just makes it harder to
do releases; if there's a problem with normal bugs being ignored (and,
IMO, there is), it needs to be addressed directly, not worked around by
filing everything as important or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
But I think the point here is that the presence of a jillion normal
bugs, unaddressed for years, constitutes a release-critical bug
While that's an interesting assertion, the real question is what it means to
address a bug. There are packages
It's a normal bug at the minimal. I couldn't get CDRToaster to even do
a simple burn of a single directory! So I think the bug description would be
more like CDRToaster has failed to follow the evolution of mkisofs's command
line parameters. As a result many fetures that CDRToaster
Ok, here is something to look at. How many NEW packages are there in
the last 2 months? How many of them could have been saved for later due to an
alternate allready existing? How many don't add a whole lot of value to debian?
Instead of many new packages, why not make people
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:49:11PM -0600, Brian Wolfe wrote:
Instead of many new packages, why not make people pick up the orphaned
stuff, and find replacements or adopt packages that have been DOA upstream?
In a volunteer organization, you can't _make_ people do anything. You
can
No, but you can do, like you said, and deny them a new package unless
they take up an older one that matches thier area of expertiece.
For example, (still picking on CDRToaster as an example only at this
time) if I were the maintainer of mkisofs, and I updated it, thus breaking
Seems to me that we came up with a solution for this problem a while
ago: the Debian QA team. Right now it has eight people, and an
overwhelming workload. I think a QA team is the right thing here;
presumably it can have the discussions about whether particular
packages are so stale they should
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:02:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Seems to me that we came up with a solution for this problem a while
ago: the Debian QA team. Right now it has eight people, and an
overwhelming workload. I think a QA team is the right thing here;
presumably it can have
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 04:52:39PM -0600, Brian Wolfe wrote:
[ a bunch of stuff I didn't read, because ... ]
If you're going to participate on the debian mailing lists, consider
doing so with a mailer that understands and honors the
Mail-Followup-To: header (yes, I know it's not an official
Adam Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I HOPE that's a joke. Mentioning the X maintainer (*cough* no names
*cough) in the same sentance as sexy is just wrong imnsho.
I dunno, he looks pretty nice in the pic on his web page. :)
Adam Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I suspect that eight people is nowhere near enough people. Maybe
I could join... Indeed, maybe the problem would go away if everyone who
has posted a suggestion in this thread joined the QA team and started work.
I'd be more than willing to
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Adam Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I suspect that eight people is nowhere near enough people. Maybe
I could join... Indeed, maybe the problem would go away if everyone who
has posted a suggestion in this
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:36:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just makes it harder to
do releases; if there's a problem with normal bugs being ignored (and,
IMO, there is), it needs to be
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
No, it's not that simple. dpkg is perfectly releasable right now, in spite
of a jillion normal bugs. Heck, now that Wichert and Adam are working on it,
it's even an example of a well maintained package.
So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085
Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
Because since we started working on it again we've had lots
more pressing things to look into that a bug like #9085?
Wichert.
--
_
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
Because since we started working on it again we've had lots
more pressing things to look into that a bug like #9085?
So I picked that bug totally at
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 06:39:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
Because since we started working on it again we've had lots
more pressing things to look into that a bug like #9085?
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Brian Wolfe wrote:
It's a normal bug at the minimal. I couldn't get CDRToaster to even do
a simple burn of a single directory! So I think the bug description would be
more like CDRToaster has failed to follow the evolution of mkisofs's command
line parameters. As a
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Brian Wolfe wrote:
It's a normal bug at the minimal. I couldn't get CDRToaster to even do
a simple burn of a single directory! So I think the bug description would be
more like CDRToaster has failed to follow the evolution of
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:36:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just makes it harder to
do releases; if there's a problem with normal bugs being
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, there are hints that there is another segfault bug out there, with
the latest version in woody. It's not repeatable, however. Also, on this
note, I stand by 1.9.18, as being one of the most safest versions of dpkg,
with regard to buffer
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
Because that's a cosmetic issue. There are more important things to work on,
like fixing bugs, and implementing features that we will need down the road.
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Um, if it doesn't work for the version of mkisofs in woody, then it is
a critical bug as far as woody is concerned.
That may be true. But someone who has potato installed, and does a partial
upgrade, might not have the new version of mkisofs.
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
Because that's a cosmetic issue. There are more important things to work on,
like fixing bugs, and implementing features that we will need down the
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, there are hints that there is another segfault bug out there,
with
the latest version in woody. It's not repeatable, however. Also, on this
note, I stand by 1.9.18, as being one of the most
46 matches
Mail list logo
