Christoph Wickert wrote:
I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
bugs.
I'll probably reply to more stuff in this thread at a later point. (I've
been noticing this thread for a while, but it's a lot of stuff to read and
probably reply to.) But I'll point out that
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 01:56:56 Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
wrote:
I don't think there's ever an absolute answer to this question.
Sometimes it makes more sense for the original reporter to report
upstream - in which case the
On 03/31/2010 07:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Then let me put it more bluntly: To a Fedora release's user, both tags
are a slap into the face of reporter and mean your bug will not be
fixed.
So, I get a minor bug report not worth pushing an update for in the
general releases but I fix
On 03/31/2010 02:38 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
Then ask the user Could you try yum --enablerepo=rawhide update foo
From Fedora 13 onwards, this repo is not even installed by default
because users quite often used to enable this accidentally and had to
reinstall their systems.
I know it's not
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Linuxguy123 wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:09 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the
On 03/31/2010 10:44 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 07:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Then let me put it more bluntly: To a Fedora release's user, both tags
are a slap into the face of reporter and mean your bug will not be
fixed.
So, I get a minor bug report not worth pushing an
On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
If your unworthy bug doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
close it WONTFIX and add a comment.
Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE? The latter seems the
more accurate status considering that I did fix it in Rawhide.
Rahul
--
On 31/03/10 10:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 02:38 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
Then ask the user Could you try yum --enablerepo=rawhide update foo
From Fedora 13 onwards, this repo is not even installed by default
which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
because
On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current release
or it is not. Telling users to get it from Rawhide was never a valid
resolution. It is a workaround in some very
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current release
or it is not. Telling users to get it from Rawhide was
On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current release
or it is not.
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:50:10 Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:55:58 Frank Murphy wrote:
On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
Not at all. Either the
On 31/03/10 12:25, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:55:58 Frank Murphy wrote:
On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
which will make fixing bugs in current even more
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 13:32:24 Frank Murphy wrote:
On 31/03/10 12:25, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:55:58 Frank Murphy wrote:
On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank
On 03/31/2010 05:50 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
If your unworthy bug doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
close it WONTFIX and add a comment.
Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE?
On 03/31/2010 06:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Well this is what I call cheating the user and maintainer lying at
themselves about their package's state and why I consider FIXED
RAWHIDE to be non-helpful.
The maintainer did not fix the bug a reporter filed, but left it
unresolved and
On 31/03/10 13:34, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 14:20:40 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
If your unworthy bug doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
close it WONTFIX and add a comment.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
That's just your perception and I don't see any consensus on that. The
bug is fixed and fixed only in the development branch and this is a
fairly common thing to do for upstream projects as well as
distributions.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we
can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects
and which of those release branches the fix is provided.
that's why there is 'clone' functionality. Use it.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Juha Tuomala juha.tuom...@iki.fi wrote:
that's why there is 'clone' functionality. Use it.
Are you saying that we should all clone every report that we all would
normally close as fixed rawhide?
-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 07:15:30PM +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we
can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects
and which of those release branches the fix
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Are you saying that we should all clone every report that we all would
normally close as fixed rawhide?
Are you saying, that everyone facing that bug, should search from
every release if that has been handled somewhere else other than the
product in
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Juha Tuomala juha.tuom...@iki.fi wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Are you saying that we should all clone every report that we all would
normally close as fixed rawhide?
Are you saying, that everyone facing that bug, should search from every
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 15:02 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
If your unworthy bug doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
close it WONTFIX and add a comment.
Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE? The latter seems the
more
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:15 +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we
can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects
and which of those release branches the fix is
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
I'm asking for a sketch of a policy that would do better at accurately
portraying what deficiencies are alive while still allowing
maintainers to efficiently track which issues they've resolved to
their satisfaction.
I've thought about
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 00:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 04/01/2010 12:42 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
An alternative is to change the version to Rawhide and then you can use
CLOSED RAWHIDE. You should usually have the reporter's agreement before
doing this, though.
Once again I note
On 04/01/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As I said in another mail, Launchpad isn't better in all respects, it's
not a simple decision. Also, currently Bugzilla is shared with Red Hat
and hence benefits from management by dkl and other RH staff;
On the other hand, none of the bugzilla
Till Maas wrote:
Maybe it would be enough to somehow store the information in Bugzilla,
e.g. using a flag for each supported release or some Whiteboard
Keywords, and then implement another Bugzilla Frontend that uses the
XML-RPC interface of Bugzilla to provide a Frontend that can be better
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:15:30 +0300 (EEST), Juha wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we
can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects
and which of those release branches the fix is
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Why would I want to clone a bz ticket if I did not want to fix the
bug in anything other than Rawhide?
Because it's a database of release's bugs, not a todo list?
I could be wrong of course, please correct me if I am. Considering
that existing
On 2010/03/31 21:47 (GMT+0200) Till Maas composed:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:29:26PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
It'd be nice to have better handling for this in a future Bugzilla
release, but I think it might require considerable internal changes,
though I'm not an expert; it doesn't
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Juha Tuomala juha.tuom...@iki.fi wrote:
Because it's a database of release's bugs, not a todo list?
Bugzilla has multiple uses. The upstream project goes to some length
describing it as a flexible tool. We in fact use it for multiple
purposes. We use it for
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:30:08 +0300 (EEST), Juha wrote:
Why would I want to clone a bz ticket if I did not want to fix the
bug in anything other than Rawhide?
Because it's a database of release's bugs, not a todo list?
Is that an answer or a question?
Anyone who wants to search the
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:09:51PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 14:56 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Maybe it would be enough to somehow store the information in Bugzilla,
e.g. using a flag for each supported release or some Whiteboard
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 16:54 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
Bugzilla is OSS. Those with the talent and inclination to do so could try
lending a hand to existing efforts to improve branch/release handling:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55970
I found that bug quickly by searching in
Juha Tuomala wrote:
They've modified the bugzilla way too much and thus logged in users
cannot for example change version or component which causes that
there is way too much of entries that would need some kind of manual
work and they lack the manpower to do that.
[...]
They do give these
On 3/31/2010 14:18, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
I'm asking for a sketch of a policy that would do better at accurately
portraying what deficiencies are alive while still allowing
maintainers to efficiently track which issues they've resolved to
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:25:50 -0400, Orcan wrote:
What is RH bugzilla for, when not using for bugs in fedora?
For packaging related bugs, or bugs related to Fedora specific
customizations on packages.
What you call Fedora specific customizations on packages may be also the
chosen
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:35 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Monday 29 March 2010 13:09:46 Christoph Wickert wrote:
I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
an upstream bug report at
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/29/2010 01:38 PM, Oliver Falk wrote:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
Me too.
Except that I would not want to restrict this complaint to Fedora KDE.
There are many other maintainers who apply a
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:11 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
2010/3/29 Oliver Falk oli...@linux-kernel.at:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As a user, having been hit by a bug, CLOSED UPSTREAM is nothing but a
cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix
a bug having hit a user.
In other words: FIXED UPSTREAM does not fix anything for the
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 09:13 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:10 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
But still bugs are fixed by program developers not Fedora developers.
IMO 'Fedora developers' (really, what you mean here are packagers, I
guess) should strive to
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't think there's ever an absolute answer to this question.
Sometimes it makes more sense for the original reporter to report
upstream - in which case the maintainer should politely ask them to;
sometimes it makes
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 15:56 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't think there's ever an absolute answer to this question.
Sometimes it makes more sense for the original reporter to report
upstream - in which case the
On 03/31/2010 01:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As a user, having been hit by a bug, CLOSED UPSTREAM is nothing but a
cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix
a bug having hit a user.
In other words:
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:09 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
the reporter doesn't
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 03/31/2010 01:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As a user, having been hit by a bug, CLOSED UPSTREAM is nothing but a
cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse
I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
the reporter doesn't respond, the bug is closed NOTABUG or WONTFIX. But
if the bug has
On Monday 29 March 2010 13:09:46 Christoph Wickert wrote:
I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
the reporter doesn't
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream bugreporting
plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on upstream bugzillas because of
exactly this...
-of
Christoph Wickert christoph.wick...@googlemail.com
On Monday 29 March 2010 13:38:52 Oliver Falk wrote:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream
bugreporting plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on upstream
bugzillas because of exactly this...
Me
2010/3/29 Oliver Falk oli...@linux-kernel.at:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream
bugreporting plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on upstream
bugzillas because of exactly this...
I
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:35 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
The problem is - we can't act as man in middle - it's better when original
reporter is also upstream reporter = direct communication.
Wait -- *any* Fedora developer could say this about any bug. I just
don't think it's true, and it
On 03/29/2010 01:38 PM, Oliver Falk wrote:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
Me too.
Except that I would not want to restrict this complaint to Fedora KDE.
There are many other maintainers who apply a similar strategy and
therefore deserve the same amount of
2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
2010/3/29 Oliver Falk oli...@linux-kernel.at:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream
bugreporting plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
2010/3/29 Oliver Falk oli...@linux-kernel.at:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream
2010/3/29 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com:
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
2010/3/29 Oliver Falk oli...@linux-kernel.at:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not
On Monday 29 March 2010 13:57:54 Tim Waugh wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:35 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
The problem is - we can't act as man in middle - it's better when
original reporter is also upstream reporter = direct communication.
Wait -- *any* Fedora developer could say this
On 03/29/2010 02:11 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowskimkkp...@gmail.com:
2010/3/29 Oliver Falkoli...@linux-kernel.at:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:20:57 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/29/2010 02:11 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowskimkkp...@gmail.com:
2010/3/29 Oliver Falkoli...@linux-kernel.at:
I had similar issues already and I totally
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:16:55 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
2010/3/29 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com:
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
2010/3/29 Oliver Falk oli...@linux-kernel.at:
I had similar issues already and I totally
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:20:57PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As a user, having been hit by a bug, CLOSED UPSTREAM is nothing but a
cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix
a bug having hit a user.
In other words: FIXED UPSTREAM does not fix anything for
2010/3/29, Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
I don't see any problem here if KDE SIG just declare we don't fix KDE
bugs, we just update packages.
wtf? You can not be serious!
It's the duty of every maintainer to accept responsibility for his/her
package(s).
If there is no responsibility
2010/3/29 Josephine Tannhäuser josephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com:
2010/3/29, Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
I don't see any problem here if KDE SIG just declare we don't fix KDE
bugs, we just update packages.
wtf? You can not be serious!
It's the duty of every maintainer to accept
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:10 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
But still bugs are fixed by program developers not Fedora developers.
IMO 'Fedora developers' (really, what you mean here are packagers, I
guess) should strive to become 'program developers' for the packages
they maintain.
Getting
On Monday 29 March 2010 15:13:56 Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:10 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
But still bugs are fixed by program developers not Fedora developers.
IMO 'Fedora developers' (really, what you mean here are packagers, I
guess) should strive to become
2010/3/29 Till Maas opensou...@till.name:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:20:57PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As a user, having been hit by a bug, CLOSED UPSTREAM is nothing but a
cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix
a bug having hit a user.
In other words:
Am Montag, den 29.03.2010, 19:47 +0200 schrieb Oliver Falk:
Yeah. Kick out KDE! Use XFCE! Flamewar! *g*
+1 :D
Just jokin'...
I also agree with Fine. Pkg maintainers are responsible for their pkgs. And
of course not everybody is able to fix any kind of bug...
I also agree with
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
Am Montag, den 29.03.2010, 21:05 +0200 schrieb Thomas Spura:
Am Montag, den 29.03.2010, 19:47 +0200 schrieb Oliver Falk:
I also agree with Fine. Pkg maintainers are responsible for their pkgs.
And of course not everybody is able to fix
72 matches
Mail list logo
