- Original Message -
> > From: mat...@fedoraproject.org
> > if someone has a clever way
> > to automatically identify the most important candidates from the thousands,
> > that would be very useful.
>
> What about having the ability to vote for bugs? I've seen it used effectively
> and in
- Original Message -
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:33:31AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > There is a kind of magic trick for this: if you set a bug to be against
> > Rawhide and give it the FutureFeature keyword (which is our 'official
> > way' of identifying RFEs), it won't ever be re-ba
- Original Message -
> On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 04:26 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:54:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > What is the underlying problem here anyway?
> > > I've never been hugely convinced there is one, but the problem people
> > > *claim*
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:55:36 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 08:48 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 23:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > Where is the human to notice "comments aft
On Thu, 06 Feb, 2014 at 12:40:26 GMT, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I think it's acknowledgement that we don't have resources to fix all of the
> crap. But I'd like if we could better identify the important cases where we
> actually *should* make sure issues are addressed, while finding the right
> balan
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 08:48 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 23:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > Where is the human to notice "comments after EOL" and act accordingly?
>
> In practice, GNOME maintainers hav
> From: mat...@fedoraproject.org
> if someone has a clever way
> to automatically identify the most important candidates from the
thousands,
> that would be very useful.
What about having the ability to vote for bugs? I've seen it used
effectively and in other cases, not so much. Maybe this co
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 23:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Where is the human to notice "comments after EOL" and act accordingly?
In practice, GNOME maintainers have hundreds of bugs apiece and so
rarely respond to individual bug repo
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Schwendt"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:21:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Auto-expiring bugs are getting absurd
>
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 14:50:59 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> &
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:33:31AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> There is a kind of magic trick for this: if you set a bug to be against
> Rawhide and give it the FutureFeature keyword (which is our 'official
> way' of identifying RFEs), it won't ever be re-based to a stable release
> at Branch t
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 04:26 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:54:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > What is the underlying problem here anyway?
> > I've never been hugely convinced there is one, but the problem people
> > *claim* there is is that closing bugs on EOL re
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:54:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > What is the underlying problem here anyway?
> I've never been hugely convinced there is one, but the problem people
> *claim* there is is that closing bugs on EOL releases gives a bad
> impression to people who report the bugs.
W
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Has that been tried before? It sounds like a better approach.
Not while I've been around, at least.
> Where is the human to notice "comments after EOL" and act accordingly?
There are always a minimum of two people active on any ticket
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:21:53PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Where is the human to notice "comments after EOL" and act accordingly?
Theeeoretically, the package maintainer.
In the prototypical version of this back in the ancient days, I actually
put myself on the CC list of all of the clos
- Original Message -
> Like this:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
>
> I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
> and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
> been a comment after the EOL warning.
The bug bot is re
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 14:50:59 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:48 +, Colin Macdonald wrote:
> > On 05/02/14 22:42, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> > > This is also not the first time this has happened to me.
> >
> > I'll chime in: when I first switched to Fedora (F14/15
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:05:06PM -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> > You just need to change the Version tag.
> That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
> very few people do.
The person who *reported* the bug can (although there possibly may be some
cases where t
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 01:51:41PM -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> Like this:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
> I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
> and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
> been a comment af
Add in "Keywords" field:
FutureFeature
Or edit the title with [RFE] prefixed?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Everyone does not need reopen: just the ability to change the version
> would suffice. (Unless there are serious worries about the risk of
> allowing users to deface version fields?) I think auto-expiration would
> work great with this twe
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
> any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be
> ignored
> is no use. We *could* give everyone privs to re-open closed bugs, I
> guess, and I person
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:04 -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> > TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to update
>> > the version if they wanted it to stay
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Sure it does - it tells them to update the version if the problem still
> occurs.
Those instructions start with "Package Maintainer:" so they are not
directed at the people experiencing the bug.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:04 -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to update
> > the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit surprised to hear
> > that they can't unles
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:57 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 05/02/14 22:50, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
> > any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be ignored
> > is no use. We *could* give everyone privs t
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:59:46 +
Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 05/02/14 22:57, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to
> > update the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit
> > surprised to hear that they can't unless they are also a pa
On 05/02/14 23:02, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
In fact the first message actually tells the reporter to do that:
: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not
: be able to fix it before Fedora 18 is end of life. If you
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to update
> the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit surprised to hear
> that they can't unless they are also a packager.
Regular bug reporters definitely can't. Of
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The idea of not closing bugs that have comments after the EOL
> notification doesn't necessarily make things better, I don't think; we'd
> just have errors in the other direction. Say someone dropped a note 'oh
> yeah, this is working now!'
On 05/02/14 22:57, Tom Hughes wrote:
TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to
update the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit surprised
to hear that they can't unless they are also a packager.
In fact the first message actually tells the reporter to do
On 05/02/14 22:50, Adam Williamson wrote:
The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be ignored
is no use. We *could* give everyone privs to re-open closed bugs, I
guess, and I personally don't think that w
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:48 +, Colin Macdonald wrote:
> On 05/02/14 22:42, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> > This is also not the first time this has happened to me.
>
> I'll chime in: when I first switched to Fedora (F14/15 era), I found
> this quite obnoxious, enough that I remember it.
>
>
On 05/02/14 22:42, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
This is also not the first time this has happened to me.
I'll chime in: when I first switched to Fedora (F14/15 era), I found
this quite obnoxious, enough that I remember it.
So there is also an issue of being a welcoming community to newcomers
David Timothy Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Timothy Strauss
wrote:
Telling me to join a group is also not addressing my complaint. My
complaint is that Fedora is auto-setting EOL on bugs with no clear way
for even the users who reported the bugs to stop it from happening.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:39 -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Quite a lot of people have editbugs - I think it's in the hundreds or
> > thousands
>
> I mean "few people" in the sense that it requires a specific grant of
> permissions,
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Timothy Strauss
wrote:
> Telling me to join a group is also not addressing my complaint. My
> complaint is that Fedora is auto-setting EOL on bugs with no clear way
> for even the users who reported the bugs to stop it from happening.
> Obviously, my comment w
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Quite a lot of people have editbugs - I think it's in the hundreds or
> thousands
I mean "few people" in the sense that it requires a specific grant of
permissions, more than to just report bugs.
Telling me to join a group is also not addr
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:36 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Please don't. This is not accurate. Bugzappers has been inactive for
> > years now. Packagers and QA team members (and possibly other groups I
> > don't know about) get editbugs privileges via automatic inher
Adam Williamson wrote:
Please don't. This is not accurate. Bugzappers has been inactive for
years now. Packagers and QA team members (and possibly other groups I
don't know about) get editbugs privileges via automatic inheritance into
the 'fedorabugs' group, and 'fedorabugs' group admins can hand
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:09 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> > That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
> > very few people do.
Rather a lot do, actually - see below.
> If you'd like to help update bugs then apply for the Bugzappers g
David Timothy Strauss wrote:
That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
very few people do.
If you'd like to help update bugs then apply for the Bugzappers group in FAS and
you'll get editbugs access to be able to change the version in the future.
As far as the bug
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Susi Lehtola
wrote:
> You just need to change the Version tag.
That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
very few people do.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedo
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:51:41 -0800
David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> Like this:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
>
> I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
> and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
> been a comment after
Like this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
been a comment after the EOL warning.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:
44 matches
Mail list logo
