On 06/15/2016 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development'
> component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd
> rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split
> currently used there.
>
> Right now we have the following components:
>
> - Applications,
> - baselayout,
> - Core system,
> - Development,
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - Games,
> - GCC Porting,
> - GNOME,
> - Hardened,
> - Java,
> - KDE,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - Library,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - Printing,
> - SELinux,
> - Server,
> - Unspecified.
>
> This basically is a mix of two component types: functional (like
> keywording, new packages...) and ebuild category (app, baselayout, core
> system...).
>
> Out of those components, GNOME, Hardened, Java, KDE and SELinux don't
> go through bug-wranglers. All other components don't have a specific
> default assignee.
>
> Of course, users are pretty much confused about which component to use,
> except for simple cases. The more experienced ones know that it doesn't
> matter most of the time, and choose a random one.
>
> Applications have around 100k bugs, new packages 128k (mostly wrong
> filled because of the old 'ebuilds' name), other components are less
> than 20k.
>
>
> I would personally go for the following layout:
>
> - All packages,
> - Core system [includes baselayout],
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - GCC Porting,
> - Hardened,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - SELinux.
>
> The goals would be:
>
> a. have something that would fit most bugs going through bug-wranglers
> on the top,
>
> b. leave the functional split for 'eclasses and profiles' and 'new
> packages',
>
> c. leave the special team components such as 'gcc porting', 'hardened'...
>
> Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most
> of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only
> confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for
> non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having them
> skip bug-wranglers doesn't sound really helpful.
>
>
> Your thoughts?
>
>
> [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577398
>
A smaller set of categories goes a long way to helping people figure out
how they should be filed, and ensures the right people look at them.
Anything to make that process smoother for both devs and users sounds
good to me. Even as a developer I feel there's too much divide among
things and it can be hard to decide where a bug goes.Ultimately it's up to the people who have to deal with the most bugs, though. -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
