- Original Message -
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 04:26 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:54:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
What is the underlying problem here anyway?
I've never been hugely convinced there is one, but the problem people
*claim* there is is
- Original Message -
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:33:31AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
There is a kind of magic trick for this: if you set a bug to be against
Rawhide and give it the FutureFeature keyword (which is our 'official
way' of identifying RFEs), it won't ever be re-based to
- Original Message -
From: mat...@fedoraproject.org
if someone has a clever way
to automatically identify the most important candidates from the thousands,
that would be very useful.
What about having the ability to vote for bugs? I've seen it used effectively
and in other
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:55:36 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 08:48 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 23:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Where is the human to notice
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:54:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
What is the underlying problem here anyway?
I've never been hugely convinced there is one, but the problem people
*claim* there is is that closing bugs on EOL releases gives a bad
impression to people who report the bugs.
We're
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 04:26 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:54:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
What is the underlying problem here anyway?
I've never been hugely convinced there is one, but the problem people
*claim* there is is that closing bugs on EOL releases
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:33:31AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
There is a kind of magic trick for this: if you set a bug to be against
Rawhide and give it the FutureFeature keyword (which is our 'official
way' of identifying RFEs), it won't ever be re-based to a stable release
at Branch
- Original Message -
From: Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:21:53 PM
Subject: Re: Auto-expiring bugs are getting absurd
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 14:50:59 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:48
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 23:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Where is the human to notice comments after EOL and act accordingly?
In practice, GNOME maintainers have hundreds of bugs apiece and so
rarely respond to individual bug reports,
From: mat...@fedoraproject.org
if someone has a clever way
to automatically identify the most important candidates from the
thousands,
that would be very useful.
What about having the ability to vote for bugs? I've seen it used
effectively and in other cases, not so much. Maybe this could
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 08:48 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 23:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Where is the human to notice comments after EOL and act accordingly?
In practice, GNOME maintainers have
On Thu, 06 Feb, 2014 at 12:40:26 GMT, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think it's acknowledgement that we don't have resources to fix all of the
crap. But I'd like if we could better identify the important cases where we
actually *should* make sure issues are addressed, while finding the right
balance
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 01:51:41PM -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
Like this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
been a comment after
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:05:06PM -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
You just need to change the Version tag.
That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
very few people do.
The person who *reported* the bug can (although there possibly may be some
cases where that
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 14:50:59 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:48 +, Colin Macdonald wrote:
On 05/02/14 22:42, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
This is also not the first time this has happened to me.
I'll chime in: when I first switched to Fedora (F14/15 era), I
- Original Message -
Like this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
been a comment after the EOL warning.
The bug bot is really
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:21:53PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Where is the human to notice comments after EOL and act accordingly?
Theeeoretically, the package maintainer.
In the prototypical version of this back in the ancient days, I actually
put myself on the CC list of all of the closed
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Has that been tried before? It sounds like a better approach.
Not while I've been around, at least.
Where is the human to notice comments after EOL and act accordingly?
There are always a minimum of two people active on any ticket
Like this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
been a comment after the EOL warning.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:51:41 -0800
David Timothy Strauss da...@davidstrauss.net wrote:
Like this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Susi Lehtola
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
You just need to change the Version tag.
That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
very few people do.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
David Timothy Strauss wrote:
That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
very few people do.
If you'd like to help update bugs then apply for the Bugzappers group in FAS and
you'll get editbugs access to be able to change the version in the future.
As far as the
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:09 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
David Timothy Strauss wrote:
That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
very few people do.
Rather a lot do, actually - see below.
If you'd like to help update bugs then apply for the Bugzappers group
Adam Williamson wrote:
Please don't. This is not accurate. Bugzappers has been inactive for
years now. Packagers and QA team members (and possibly other groups I
don't know about) get editbugs privileges via automatic inheritance into
the 'fedorabugs' group, and 'fedorabugs' group admins can
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:36 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Please don't. This is not accurate. Bugzappers has been inactive for
years now. Packagers and QA team members (and possibly other groups I
don't know about) get editbugs privileges via automatic inheritance
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Quite a lot of people have editbugs - I think it's in the hundreds or
thousands
I mean few people in the sense that it requires a specific grant of
permissions, more than to just report bugs.
Telling me to join a group
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Timothy Strauss
da...@davidstrauss.net wrote:
Telling me to join a group is also not addressing my complaint. My
complaint is that Fedora is auto-setting EOL on bugs with no clear way
for even the users who reported the bugs to stop it from happening.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:39 -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Quite a lot of people have editbugs - I think it's in the hundreds or
thousands
I mean few people in the sense that it requires a specific grant of
David Timothy Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Timothy Strauss
da...@davidstrauss.net wrote:
Telling me to join a group is also not addressing my complaint. My
complaint is that Fedora is auto-setting EOL on bugs with no clear way
for even the users who reported the bugs to
On 05/02/14 22:42, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
This is also not the first time this has happened to me.
I'll chime in: when I first switched to Fedora (F14/15 era), I found
this quite obnoxious, enough that I remember it.
So there is also an issue of being a welcoming community to
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:48 +, Colin Macdonald wrote:
On 05/02/14 22:42, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
This is also not the first time this has happened to me.
I'll chime in: when I first switched to Fedora (F14/15 era), I found
this quite obnoxious, enough that I remember it.
So
On 05/02/14 22:50, Adam Williamson wrote:
The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be ignored
is no use. We *could* give everyone privs to re-open closed bugs, I
guess, and I personally don't think that
On 05/02/14 22:57, Tom Hughes wrote:
TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to
update the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit surprised
to hear that they can't unless they are also a packager.
In fact the first message actually tells the reporter to
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
The idea of not closing bugs that have comments after the EOL
notification doesn't necessarily make things better, I don't think; we'd
just have errors in the other direction. Say someone dropped a note 'oh
yeah, this
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to update
the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit surprised to hear
that they can't unless they are also a packager.
Regular bug reporters
On 05/02/14 23:02, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
In fact the first message actually tells the reporter to do that:
: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not
: be able to fix it before Fedora 18 is end
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:59:46 +
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 05/02/14 22:57, Tom Hughes wrote:
TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to
update the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit
surprised to hear that they can't unless they are
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:57 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 05/02/14 22:50, Adam Williamson wrote:
The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be ignored
is no use. We *could* give everyone privs to
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:04 -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to update
the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit surprised to hear
that they
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Sure it does - it tells them to update the version if the problem still
occurs.
Those instructions start with Package Maintainer: so they are not
directed at the people experiencing the bug.
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:04 -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to update
the version
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be
ignored
is no use. We *could* give everyone privs to re-open closed bugs, I
guess, and I personally
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
Everyone does not need reopen: just the ability to change the version
would suffice. (Unless there are serious worries about the risk of
allowing users to deface version fields?) I think auto-expiration would
work
Add in Keywords field:
FutureFeature
Or edit the title with [RFE] prefixed?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
44 matches
Mail list logo
