> unless they can give some demonstration that they're into more than just
> making packages. Fixing bugs, for instance.
This advice is quite usual on this list. I think there are a few reasons why
it's not as common thing for non-DDs to do as it maybe could be:
+ There are so many packages an
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 03:44:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 04:56:46PM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> > I.e. aside from trying to convince someone that Debian would benefit from
> > having you around (I, for one, have an advocate already) or fixing bugs from
> > packages
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 01:02:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 03:44:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Have you tried http://bugs.qa.debian.org/?
>
> http://bugs.qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/standard.cgi says that bison has 3
> serious bugs.
>
> Page discarded as useless du
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-04-13 02:25]:
> The fact that pkgreport.cgi doesn't display them is a bug in
> debbugs, not
Well, then we can still blame you. :-P
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> > unless they can give some demonstration that they're into more than just
> > making packages. Fixing bugs, for instance.
>
> This advice is quite usual on this list. I think there are a few reasons why
> it's not as common thing for non-DDs to do as
* Jarno Elonen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030412 11:20]:
> > unless they can give some demonstration that they're into more than just
> > making packages. Fixing bugs, for instance.
> This advice is quite usual on this list. I think there are a few reasons why
> it's not as common thing for non-DDs to
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 11:36:15AM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> This advice is quite usual on this list. I think there are a few reasons why
> it's not as common thing for non-DDs to do as it maybe could be:
>
> + There are so many packages and so many bugs that it's really hard to
>say wher
> Pointing someone at a package they're not interested in won't work, either,
> though. Dunno what the solution is, but surely every prospective DD can
> find enough packages they use on a regular basis and find bugs in them?
I currently have 1104 packages installed maybe 15 on which I'm even som
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030412 13:05]:
> You've got the release-critical bug list, which is a good place to
> start.
Not really. Most bugs need much knowledge of debian (or the policy),
or work on non-i386-platforms, or a recompilation, or mixed. For the
last two things it's very much
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 11:36:15AM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> > unless they can give some demonstration that they're into more than just
> > making packages. Fixing bugs, for instance.
>
> This advice is quite usual on this list. I think there are
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 02:41:53PM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 11:36:15AM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> >I've been playing around with an idea of making a nice local
> >frontend for BTS by adding a procmail filter that would intercept
> >incoming mail. But:
> > + There are so many packages and so many bugs that it's really hard to
> >say where to start.
>
> this is an upstream bug I wont fix anytime soon, so here is something
> to start with:
> http://bugs.debian.org/71419
> webcheck: Could it be internationalized?
Tips like this are good of cou
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 04:56:46PM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> I.e. aside from trying to convince someone that Debian would benefit from
> having you around (I, for one, have an advocate already) or fixing bugs from
> packages you are interested in:
>
>which bugs (and more importantly) _in_
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 03:44:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 04:56:46PM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> > I.e. aside from trying to convince someone that Debian would benefit from
> > having you around (I, for one, have an advocate already) or fixing bugs
> > from
> > pac
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 01:02:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 03:44:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Have you tried http://bugs.qa.debian.org/?
>
> http://bugs.qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/standard.cgi says that bison has 3
> serious bugs.
>
> Page discarded as useless du
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-04-13 02:25]:
> The fact that pkgreport.cgi doesn't display them is a bug in
> debbugs, not
Well, then we can still blame you. :-P
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> Since stable base packages (in addition to effective developmen tools!) are
> the most important factor in making a stable OS, it would be good to have
> more work concentrated on them.
As Colin has already pointed out, bugs.qa.debian.org can give list
> Sounds like something a prospective DD might like to have a go at.
> Especially someone who has plans to perhaps hack dpkg, apt, or something
> like that. Groping through the packages DB is the main part, counting
> outstanding bugs should be pretty simple. Anyone want to give it a whirl?
I th
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 12:21:49PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-04-13 02:25]:
> > The fact that pkgreport.cgi doesn't display them is a bug in
> > debbugs, not
>
> Well, then we can still blame you. :-P
You'll note that bugreport.cgi has improved recen
* Jarno Elonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030412 11:41]:
> + The bug tracking system is a less clear and more difficult to use
>than in many other open projects.
>
>I, for instance, find it a lot easier to work with KDE's or even
>OOo's bug trackers than Debian's. Being email based (an thus
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 02:25:43AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 01:02:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 03:44:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Have you tried http://bugs.qa.debian.org/?
> >
> > http://bugs.qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/standard.cgi
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 03:19:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 02:25:43AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > (Hint for the unaware: #166130, #166897, #167054. The fact that
> > pkgreport.cgi doesn't display them is a bug in debbugs, not
> > bugs.qa.debian.org.)
>
> So bugs.
> > (Hint for the unaware: #166130, #166897, #167054. The fact that
> > pkgreport.cgi doesn't display them is a bug in debbugs, not
> > bugs.qa.debian.org.)
>
> So bugs.qa.debian.org has a different notion of what constitutes an RC
> bug in a package to everything else
My guess is that pkgreport j
23 matches
Mail list logo
