On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:12 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > > Many users seem to think > > > > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the > > > > most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't > > > > be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are > > > > not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case. > > > > > > But if a developer tells them what is wrong and to reopen the bug when > > > they've fixed it, it shouldn't be a problem. And that's what I've seen > > > in this case. > > > > > > > I think you all misunderstand MY position on this. I provided ebuilds in > > the hope it would save the maintainers time and effort. If the work I > > did is 90% to spec, then there really is no reason for the maintainer > > NOT to take it, tweak it, and maybe send a note or add a comment to the > > bug as to what was fixed. It would ensure two things: 1) that the user > > will (hopefully) not make the same mistake again, and 2) get the ebuild > > upstream quicker. > > > > Sending it back to the contributor only will waste more time. > > > > You will get exactly the same effect if you were to send a patch to LKML > to fix or improve some or other part of the kernel, and either the > coding style, or the way it is fixed is not to Linus or the specific > subsystem maintainer's liking.
Listen, if all you want is perfection, you will find users won't want to contribute anymore. All you're accomplishing is wasting time. User submits enhancement as per: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ebuild-submit.xml . Nothing in that document talks about having to be perfect. It even allows for users to say "hey, there is a new version out." But know. The ebuild attack dogs slap a WONTFIX/RESOLVED tag on an app. So, instead of an enhancement in the pipeline, we have several dead bugs. Not contructive IMHO. > > The general idea is that if somebody want to get involved, they should > be prepared to to take the time to learn how to do fairly decent > patches/whatever. This makes review easier, and also minimises the > workload on whatever maintainer. > I think you need to rethink that. Notifying a maintainer that there is an update or new add on to an existing project is not really getting involved. It's HELPING. I realize that maintainers cannot stay on top of all 120,000 packages. That's where the everyday users come in. They, selfishly, monitor THEIR pet applications. When something slips, they report it via bugzilla. If the everyday users stop contributing these notifications, your distro is SOL. My mistake was trying to be helpful and submitting ebuilds. Instead of being construed as helping, some of you perceived I was angling for a dev position. Why DO you have over 600 maintainer-wanted ebuilds? You should look into that. Could it be that 600 people who submitted an idea were intimidated or put off? What I WOULD like to know is: 1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius? 2) Who is maintaining ROX and what's going to be done about it. Really, I don't want this thread to become a philosophical discussion on ebuild submission policy. You know my frustration. As a user, I just want to see the ROX package group updated as I noted on my first message and in the associated bug reports. How this devolved into this name calling argument over what is just criticism and ebuild style is completely OT and avoids the issue of the two questions above. So, please just answer the above two questions, and we can end this thread. If philosophy is desired, then start a new one. I just want to know about ROX now. -- Peter -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
