On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:27:55PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > *what's* in it. Just because it has a patch tag doesn't mean it's > > > necessarily any higher-quality of a bug unless it's been triaged. > > > > It may not be higher quality, but it almost definately is higher > > effort. > > > > Correspondingly the frustration on part of the bug/patch submitter when > > there's no response at all will be higher also. > > In my experience the correlation between the patch tag and the quality > of the report is fairly weak.
that wasn't the poin I was trying to make :)
> Often a clear and lucid bug report that outlines the required fix won't
> have the patch tag because it hasn't got an a literal patch.
> Often a patch is the first thing someone thought of and has serious
> problems or requires noticable effort to understand due to a lack of
> commentary.
the point I was attempting to get across is that:
- somebody supplying a patch is somebody who'se actively _trying_ to help.
-> supplying a literal patch obviously is not the only way to do this (you
outlined another class above), it's just one way that's easily
spottable because of the patch tag
- the fact that someone is actively helping find a solution is a Good Thing,
we want to avoid having people who do that feel ignored
-> this is one case where it is especially important to get some kind of
reaction to the bug (Note: this does not necessarily meen speedy
resolution of that patch and/or bug)
=> When this is not happening the package needs help badly
Automatically orphaning such packages has problems as Russel pointed out,
but a "needs co-maintainers"/"needs hijacking" list of packages where
DD's can be more aggressive in jumping/taking over in seems a good idea
IMO.
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
pgpntQR2AJ3Y5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
