On 29 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > But I suspect that eight people is nowhere near enough people. Maybe
> > > I could join...
> >
> > Please do! Adrian Bunk posted a proposal a month or so ago for QA
> > organization in the future, conta
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I suspect that eight people is nowhere near enough people. Maybe
> > I could join...
>
> Please do! Adrian Bunk posted a proposal a month or so ago for QA
> organization in the future, containing a good summary of the kinds of
> things people can
This is why I labeled it as "if it were me". Of course I tend to
take a harder view of whats the programmers responsibilities when releasing
a package than most people. Maybe it has to do with my overbuilt sense of
getting things done right and not being blamed for breaks too frequesntly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Wolfe) writes:
> Actualy, I believe that the mkisofs maintainer should have seen that a
> new option was created and notified the maintainers of anything that
> depended on mkisofs ...
That's pushing it, I think. I've had several experiences as a maintainer
where somet
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Maybe we need a way to make being on the QA team a sexy job, just like
> maintaining glibc or the kernel or X is.
What about dpkg or apt?
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 04:24:06PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 04:14:46PM +0200, Juha J?ykk? wrote:
>
> > I wonder how this could happen in the first place: if CDRToaster
> > depended properly on mkisofs version <= whatever, then upgrading
> > mkisofs should remove CDRToas
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 04:14:46PM +0200, Juha Jäykkä wrote:
> I wonder how this could happen in the first place: if CDRToaster
> depended properly on mkisofs version <= whatever, then upgrading
> mkisofs should remove CDRToaster.
Why should CDRToaster expect mkisofs to randomly change its inte
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 05:44:38AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
[Discussing removal of bitrotted packages]
> Usually we only get involved in discussions like this for orphaned
> packages, at least so far.
Back when the committee was alive it (or at least some members of it)
did do some stuff along
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:02:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Maybe we need a way to make being on the QA team a sexy job, just like
> maintaining glibc or the kernel or X is.
Eh? In my experience the maintainers of these packages get nothing but
grief, sometimes from each other. :)
-
> cause the package to fail more and more in more common usage. Debian updated
> it's version of mkisofs, and thus IT broke CDRToaster. As such this is now in
I wonder how this could happen in the first place: if CDRToaster
depended properly on mkisofs version <= whatever, then upgrading
mkisofs
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:02:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Seems to me that we came up with a solution for this problem a while
> ago: the Debian QA team. Right now it has eight people, and an
> overwhelming workload.
You both exaggerate and understate things here.
http://www.debian.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 11:07:20PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Um, if it doesn't work for the version of mkisofs in woody, then it is
> > a critical bug as far as woody is concerned.
>
> That may be true. But someone who has potato installed, and
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Of course, there are hints that there is another segfault bug out there,
> > with
> > the latest version in woody. It's not repeatable, however. Also, on this
> > note, I stand by 1.9.18, as being one of
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
>
> Because that's a cosmetic issue. There are more important things to work on,
> like fixing bugs, and implementing features that we will need down
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Um, if it doesn't work for the version of mkisofs in woody, then it is
> a critical bug as far as woody is concerned.
That may be true. But someone who has potato installed, and does a partial
upgrade, might not have the new version of mkisofs.
Seri
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
Because that's a cosmetic issue. There are more important things to work on,
like fixing bugs, and implementing features that we will need down the road.
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, there are hints that there is another segfault bug out there, with
> the latest version in woody. It's not repeatable, however. Also, on this
> note, I stand by 1.9.18, as being one of the most safest versions of dpkg,
> with regard to buffer o
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:36:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just makes it harder to
> > > do releases; if there's a problem with normal bugs being ignored (and,
> >
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Brian Wolfe wrote:
>
> > It's a normal bug at the minimal. I couldn't get CDRToaster to even do
> > a simple burn of a single directory! So I think the bug description would be
> > more like "CDRToaster has failed to follow the evo
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Brian Wolfe wrote:
> It's a normal bug at the minimal. I couldn't get CDRToaster to even do
> a simple burn of a single directory! So I think the bug description would be
> more like "CDRToaster has failed to follow the evolution of mkisofs's command
> line parameters. A
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 06:39:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
> > Because since we started working on it again we've had lots
> > more pressing things to look into that a bug like #
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
>
> Because since we started working on it again we've had lots
> more pressing things to look into that a bug like #9085?
So I picked that bug total
Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
Because since we started working on it again we've had lots
more pressing things to look into that a bug like #9085?
Wichert.
--
_
Anthony Towns writes:
> No, it's not that simple. dpkg is perfectly releasable right now, in spite
> of a jillion normal bugs. Heck, now that Wichert and Adam are working on it,
> it's even an example of a well maintained package.
So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
> There
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:36:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just makes it harder to
> > do releases; if there's a problem with normal bugs being ignored (and,
> > IMO, there is), it needs to be addressed directly,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > But I suspect that eight people is nowhere near enough people. Maybe
> > > I could join... Indeed, maybe the problem would go away if everyone who
> > > has posted a suggestion
Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I suspect that eight people is nowhere near enough people. Maybe
> > I could join... Indeed, maybe the problem would go away if everyone who
> > has posted a suggestion in this thread joined the QA team and started work.
>
> I'd be more than willin
Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I HOPE that's a joke. Mentioning the X maintainer (*cough* no names
> *cough) in the same sentance as "sexy" is just wrong imnsho.
I dunno, he looks pretty nice in the pic on his web page. :)
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 04:52:39PM -0600, Brian Wolfe wrote:
[ a bunch of stuff I didn't read, because ... ]
If you're going to participate on the debian mailing lists, consider
doing so with a mailer that understands and honors the
Mail-Followup-To: header (yes, I know it's not an "official" sta
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:02:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> Seems to me that we came up with a solution for this problem a while
> ago: the Debian QA team. Right now it has eight people, and an
> overwhelming workload. I think a QA team is the right thing here;
> presumably it can
Seems to me that we came up with a solution for this problem a while
ago: the Debian QA team. Right now it has eight people, and an
overwhelming workload. I think a QA team is the right thing here;
presumably it can have the discussions about whether particular
packages are so stale they should
No, but you can do, like you said, and deny them a new package unless
they take up an older one that matches thier area of expertiece.
For example, (still picking on CDRToaster as an example only at this
time) if I were the maintainer of mkisofs, and I updated it, thus breaking
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:49:11PM -0600, Brian Wolfe wrote:
> Instead of many new packages, why not make people pick up the orphaned
> stuff, and find replacements or adopt packages that have been DOA upstream?
In a volunteer organization, you can't _make_ people do anything. You
can enco
Ok, here is something to look at. How many NEW packages are there in
the last 2 months? How many of them could have been saved for later due to an
alternate allready existing? How many don't add a whole lot of value to debian?
Instead of many new packages, why not make people pic
It's a normal bug at the minimal. I couldn't get CDRToaster to even do
a simple burn of a single directory! So I think the bug description would be
more like "CDRToaster has failed to follow the evolution of mkisofs's command
line parameters. As a result many fetures that CDRToaster purp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> But I think the point here is that the presence of a jillion normal
> bugs, unaddressed for years, constitutes a release-critical bug
While that's an interesting assertion, the real question is what it means to
"address" a bug. There are package
Anthony Towns writes:
> Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just makes it harder to
> do releases; if there's a problem with normal bugs being ignored (and,
> IMO, there is), it needs to be addressed directly, not worked around by
> filing everything as important or higher.
But I thin
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:26:50PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:07:57PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> > > As was stated elsewhere, the best way you can make a meaningful
> > > contribution is to file bugs that are "higher level" than
> > >
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:07:57PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> > As was stated elsewhere, the best way you can make a meaningful
> > contribution is to file bugs that are "higher level" than
> > "normal", in order to draw attention to broken packages.
> Oh god no. Pl
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:07:57PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
>
> Brian, I understand your complaints. It bugs me, too, to find
> software not maintained well. We are volunteers, though, and as you
> realize, it takes a lot of time to do this, and so it happens, on
> occasion that someone jus
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:07:57PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> As was stated elsewhere, the best way you can make a meaningful
> contribution is to file bugs that are "higher level" than "normal", in
> order to draw attention to broken packages.
Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties
Brian, I understand your complaints. It bugs me, too, to find
software not maintained well. We are volunteers, though, and as you
realize, it takes a lot of time to do this, and so it happens, on
occasion that someone just can't keep up. I don't think it's really
fair of people to tell you "hey
Damn, I didn't want to post here anymore, but looks like I need to add
some points. :-(
On 26/12/01, Brian Wolfe wrote:
> Heh, I was not aware that a non-developer could subscribe to d-d.
Looking at http://lists.debian.org and reading the list description
would have told you that before.
>
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 08:40:52AM +, David Graham wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > For some time now there has been an increasing trend in people that
> > I know who use debian. It is the view that debian is becoming
> > increasingly "old"/outdated, and
Heh, I was not aware that a non-developer could subscribe to d-d.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 08:41:54AM +, David Graham wrote:
>
>
> Nice bait I'll bite, but if you want to read it you'll have to
> subscribe... It's not fair to throw the rock and hide the hand
>
> 1) learn how to
Duly chastined. :) I discovered a few minutes ago (thanks to a friend
that is d-d) that I can in fact join the debian-devel list. So I am now lurking
to read and reply. :)
I'll reply in a few minutes to the other email. :)
Brian
46 matches
Mail list logo
