Hello!
The following is a rant about XB-Maemo-Upgrade-Description
with some suggestions for improvement...
Change Log handling (at that time for the downlaod page however ) was
discussed before!
See:
http://www.mail-archive.com/maemo-developers@maemo.org/msg16160.html
--
Gruß...
On Nov 12, 2009, at 4:50, Graham Cobb wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 04:29:55PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
>> ext Thomas Perl writes:
>>
>>> The following is a rant about XB-Maemo-Upgrade-Description
>>> with some suggestions for improvement...
>>
>> Yeah, as soon as I 'invented' it, I cou
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 04:29:55PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> ext Thomas Perl writes:
>
> > The following is a rant about XB-Maemo-Upgrade-Description
> > with some suggestions for improvement...
>
> Yeah, as soon as I 'invented' it, I could see how it is not going to
> work very well. I ac
On Nov 11, 2009, at 15:29, Marius Vollmer wrote:
>>
>> My suggestion is to either use the Debian changelog, or if this sounds
>> too "technical" for the end user, agree on some way to mark
>> "user-relevant" changes in the Debian changelog (by using "USER:" as a
>> prefix for a one-line summary
ext Thomas Perl writes:
> The following is a rant about XB-Maemo-Upgrade-Description
> with some suggestions for improvement...
Yeah, as soon as I 'invented' it, I could see how it is not going to
work very well. I actually think it is best to ignore this field.
> My suggestion is to either us
2009/11/4 Graham Cobb :
> Attila said...
>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:28:58 Andrew Flegg wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 09:03, wrote:
>> > > Two days later I notice a blinking orange light in my status bar. I see
>> > > a new version of the application. I install, I check what has chan
On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:29, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> Jeremiah wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2009, at 19:25, Tim Teulings wrote:
>>
>>> P.S.: Don't trust my version numbers! Trust my checkbox choice!
>>
>> That is totally fine with me. I thought a version number was less
>> intrusive, developers didn't have to
On Nov 4, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Graham Cobb wrote:
> But the update description does not help with testing: (a) it is
> user friendly text, not a developer changelog and (b) the
> description is vs. the version already in Extras not vs. the last
> extras-testing version.
I'd still love to see a
Attila said...
> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:28:58 Andrew Flegg wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 09:03, wrote:
> > > Two days later I notice a blinking orange light in my status bar. I see
> > > a new version of the application. I install, I check what has changed
> > > (minor or major?), I
On Nov 4, 2009, at 12:49, Attila Csipa wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:28:58 Andrew Flegg wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 09:03, wrote:
>>> Two days later I notice a blinking orange light in my status bar.
>>> I see
>>> a new version of the application. I install, I check what has
"Voipio Riku (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" writes:
> Every company has software testers, yet it doesn't mean they dont trust
> their developers :)
I think there are two kinds of trust on the table here: trust in
developers not to make mistakes, and trust in developers not to abuse
the process malevolently
ext Henrik Hedberg wrote:
> Tim Teulings wrote:
>
>
>>> Except how do you try to prevent abuse (whether intentional or
>>> accidental)? At least with the version number you've got some safety
>>> check (although it is in no way comprehensive). It also requires more
>>> changes at more levels (I
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:28:58 Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 09:03, wrote:
> > Two days later I notice a blinking orange light in my status bar. I see
> > a new version of the application. I install, I check what has changed
> > (minor or major?), I run my tests and thumb i
Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 09:03, wrote:
> >
> > Two days later I notice a blinking orange light in my status bar. I
> > see a new version of the application. I install, I check what has
> > changed (minor or major?), I run my tests and thumb it up again.
>
> Aside: how do y
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 09:03, wrote:
>
> Two days later I notice a blinking orange light in my status bar. I see
> a new version of the application. I install, I check what has changed
> (minor or major?), I run my tests and thumb it up again.
Aside: how do you check what has changed?
> I didn'
Andrew Flegg wrote.
>
> Jeremiah wrote:
> >
> > Shall we put a checkbox by the package promotion page, or somewhere
> > where we remember, which keeps all accrued karma?
>
> That's probably a good first step, however I wonder if long
> term something like Marius suggested might be better:
> r
Jeremiah wrote:
>
> On Nov 3, 2009, at 19:25, Tim Teulings wrote:
>
> > P.S.: Don't trust my version numbers! Trust my checkbox choice!
>
> That is totally fine with me. I thought a version number was less
> intrusive, developers didn't have to do anything, just remember which
> part of their ver
Tim Teulings wrote:
>> Except how do you try to prevent abuse (whether intentional or
>> accidental)? At least with the version number you've got some safety
>> check (although it is in no way comprehensive). It also requires more
>> changes at more levels (I bet), so harder to implement.
>
> I t
On Nov 3, 2009, at 19:25, Tim Teulings wrote:
> P.S.: Don't trust my version numbers! Trust my checkbox choice!
That is totally fine with me. I thought a version number was less
intrusive, developers didn't have to do anything, just remember which
part of their version to change. But as vers
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>
>
>
> And despite various complaints, many are saying that the process will
> in fact produce better software. So we are in the right area anyway.
>
here here.
teething troubles and getting used to a different stance.
> Jeremiah
>
>
>
On Nov 3, 2009, at 20:36, Henrik Hedberg wrote:
> Tim Teulings wrote:
>
>>> Except how do you try to prevent abuse (whether intentional or
>>> accidental)? At least with the version number you've got some safety
>>> check (although it is in no way comprehensive). It also requires
>>> more
>>> c
Hello!
> Except how do you try to prevent abuse (whether intentional or
> accidental)? At least with the version number you've got some safety
> check (although it is in no way comprehensive). It also requires more
> changes at more levels (I bet), so harder to implement.
I think it is time to de
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 14:34, Frank Banul wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>>
>> Except how do you try to prevent abuse (whether intentional or
>> accidental)? At least with the version number you've got some safety
>> check (although it is in no way comprehensive). It
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 13:58, Henrik Hedberg
> wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:16, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>>
Agreed. -maemo0 to -maemo1 is supposed to be a Maemo-specific change
or a packaging change (AIUI). Native packages (such as He
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 13:58, Henrik Hedberg
wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:16, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
>>> Agreed. -maemo0 to -maemo1 is supposed to be a Maemo-specific change
>>> or a packaging change (AIUI). Native packages (such as Hermes,
>>> Attitude etc.) don't have that suffix and use a tra
> On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:16, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>> Agreed. -maemo0 to -maemo1 is supposed to be a Maemo-specific change
>> or a packaging change (AIUI). Native packages (such as Hermes,
>> Attitude etc.) don't have that suffix and use a traditional x.y.z
>> numbering scheme.
Not necessarily.
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:16, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 08:43, Marius Vollmer
> wrote:
>> ext Jeremiah Foster writes:
>>
>>> To beat the horse dead;
>>>
>>> foo_1.0-1maemo0 -> bug fix -> foo_1.0-1maemo1 = All karma
>>> retained
>>> foo_1.0-1maemo0 -> feature ->
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 08:43, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> ext Jeremiah Foster writes:
>
>> To beat the horse dead;
>>
>> foo_1.0-1maemo0 -> bug fix -> foo_1.0-1maemo1 = All karma retained
>> foo_1.0-1maemo0 -> feature -> foo_1.1-1maemo0 = Karma set to zero
>
> Nitpick: 1.0 -> 1.1 might
ext Jeremiah Foster writes:
> To beat the horse dead;
>
> foo_1.0-1maemo0 -> bug fix -> foo_1.0-1maemo1 = All karma retained
> foo_1.0-1maemo0 -> feature -> foo_1.1-1maemo0 = Karma set to zero
Nitpick: 1.0 -> 1.1 might well be a bug fix release as well. Also, I
think that ma
On Nov 2, 2009, at 15:42, Riku Voipio wrote:
> ext Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2009, at 11:02, Henrik Hedberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Martin Grimme wrote:
>>>
>>>
resetting Karma on a new version leads to one very bad issue, IMHO:
Developers of packages with some Karma will hold b
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> > Grrr!
> >
> > I hate that kind of talk. It only makes the problem worse.
> What problem? This mailing list has a higher concentration of
> involved (and affected) developers t
On Nov 2, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Qole wrote:
> Your reply continues to sound like the middle class moms who argue
> for private schools. How will our children ever get ahead if they go
> to that school down the street? It is full of common children who
> will only slow our gifted children down.
Your reply continues to sound like the middle class moms who argue for
private schools. How will our children ever get ahead if they go to that
school down the street? It is full of common children who will only slow our
gifted children down.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Flegg wrote:
Alan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
> > I'd say we've had more intelligent thought and discussion here than
> > I'd expect on this topic on talk
>
> Grrr!
>
> I hate that kind of talk. It only makes the problem worse.
What problem? This mailing list has a higher co
I really like Marius' ideas. A mature, high-karma app should be able to push
bugfixes through the system without all the QA hassles of a new, untested
app. Security fixes on high-karma apps should go straight to extras.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> I'd say we've had more
Aniello Del Sorbo ha scritto:
> As Henry did with Mauku, I am doing the same for Xournal. I want it to
> extras and then I will release a stupid minor bug fix.
> And nothing will make me change my idea.
> If there was a button "promote to Extras" I would have hit it already
> and a bug fix would a
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 15:03, Aniello Del Sorbo wrote:
>
> But how do we do it ?
>
> Here?
> Talk?
> Brainstorm?
I'd say we've had more intelligent thought and discussion here than
I'd expect on this topic on talk; and I don't think the
single-threaded nature of brainstorm with the limited pot of
Yup,
surely the system needs to be fixed.
I have some ideas, I don't like some of the ones already proposed, and
of some of them I do like some pieces, but not others and other pieces
could be improved..
But how do we do it ?
Here?
Talk?
Brainstorm?
I once stated that it's the developer that sh
ext Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2009, at 11:02, Henrik Hedberg wrote:
>
>
>> Martin Grimme wrote:
>>
>>
>>> resetting Karma on a new version leads to one very bad issue, IMHO:
>>>
>>> Developers of packages with some Karma will hold back bugfix-updates
>>> until the unfixed version h
ext Attila Csipa writes:
> Yes, there is definitely a sense of throwing out the baby with the bathwater
> here - as is, with a sufficiently mature app, NOT applying simple fixes will
> get
> the app to the user quicker, and applying the fixes will keep the app AWAY
> from
> the users.
I am
On Nov 1, 2009, at 11:02, Henrik Hedberg wrote:
> Martin Grimme wrote:
>
>> resetting Karma on a new version leads to one very bad issue, IMHO:
>>
>> Developers of packages with some Karma will hold back bugfix-updates
>> until the unfixed version has reached extras.
This is a real problem that
Martin Grimme wrote:
> resetting Karma on a new version leads to one very bad issue, IMHO:
>
> Developers of packages with some Karma will hold back bugfix-updates
> until the unfixed version has reached extras.
Guilty as charged.
I have actually postponed the release of Mauku 2.0 beta
Hi,
resetting Karma on a new version leads to one very bad issue, IMHO:
Developers of packages with some Karma will hold back bugfix-updates
until the unfixed version has reached extras.
This should be avoided.
Martin
2009/11/1, Henrik Hedberg :
> igor.sto...@nokia.com wrote:
>
>> I think th
igor.sto...@nokia.com wrote:
> I think the problem here is that some braindead system has been introduced,
> which doesn't account for the actual work being done.
And what is the biggest mistake here is that the new system has been
put into production before testing it at all.
Someone j
Hi Andrew and Atilla,
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Attila Csipa wrote:
> On Saturday 31 October 2009 19:43:40 Andrew Flegg wrote:
>> After working 'til stupid o'clock last night on a new version of Hermes,
>> today someone's found a bug which'll impact a small number of people. The
>> fix is
Hi,
From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org]
On Behalf Of ext Andrea Grandi [a.gra...@gmail.com]
Sent: 31 October 2009 22:06
To: Attila Csipa
Cc: maemo-developers@maemo.org
Subject: Re: QA process = bug fixing
Hi,
2009/10/31 Attila Csipa :
> There is a definitely a conflict there. I support Jeremiah's suggestion that
> minor packaging/typo fixes that do not alter app functionality (e.g. when you
> go from 1.0-maemo0 to 1.0-maemo1) should not reset app karma. Should require
> some discipline so people wo
On Saturday 31 October 2009 19:43:40 Andrew Flegg wrote:
> After working 'til stupid o'clock last night on a new version of Hermes,
> today someone's found a bug which'll impact a small number of people. The
> fix is trivial.
> However, I find myself *not* wanting to fix it as it'll need to go thro
On Oct 31, 2009, at 20:27, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 19:26, Frank Banul
> wrote:
>>
>> I just threw away 5 karma to make some changes (but I think
>> worthwhile). I think the idea is that when there's many more users,
>> 10
>> silly karma points will be nothing. Until the
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 19:26, Frank Banul wrote:
>
> I just threw away 5 karma to make some changes (but I think
> worthwhile). I think the idea is that when there's many more users, 10
> silly karma points will be nothing. Until then, have faith, or
> something like that. :)
That's the theory,
Hi,
I just threw away 5 karma to make some changes (but I think
worthwhile). I think the idea is that when there's many more users, 10
silly karma points will be nothing. Until then, have faith, or
something like that. :)
Frank
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Afte
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 18:55, Andrea Grandi wrote:
>
> By the way, I've upgraded to Hermes 0.2 but I haven't used it yet,
> what is the bug you're talking about?
Some Facebook UIDs will now overflow MAXINT, and so I need to store it
in gconf as a long, rather than an int.
Cheers,
Andrew
--
A
Hi,
2009/10/31 Andrew Flegg :
> Hi,
>
> After working 'til stupid o'clock last night on a new version of Hermes,
> today someone's found a bug which'll impact a small number of people. The fix
> is trivial.
>
> However, I find myself *not* wanting to fix it as it'll need to go through
> another
53 matches
Mail list logo
