FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-12-2010, 12:36 AM
Eric Smith
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS,
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=51153>. I took it over,
updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with
Koji, and committed it. I'm not sure what to do about the Status field
of the bug. I looked for relevant documentation on the bug lifecycle or
practices in the Fedora wiki, but didn't really find anything useful.
Is there such documentation? And if not, to what should I set the bug
status?

Thanks!
Eric

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-12-2010, 12:55 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 05:36:23PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
> The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS,
> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=51153>. I took it over,
> updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with
> Koji, and committed it. I'm not sure what to do about the Status field
> of the bug. I looked for relevant documentation on the bug lifecycle or
> practices in the Fedora wiki, but didn't really find anything useful.
> Is there such documentation? And if not, to what should I set the bug
> status?
>
Looks like you've linked to the wrong bug.

From the description, it now builds from source, at least in rawhide.
I think you want to Close Rawhide in that case.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-12-2010, 03:00 AM
Matt Domsch
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 05:36:23PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
> The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS,
> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=51153>. I took it over,
> updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with
> Koji, and committed it. I'm not sure what to do about the Status field
> of the bug. I looked for relevant documentation on the bug lifecycle or
> practices in the Fedora wiki, but didn't really find anything useful.
> Is there such documentation? And if not, to what should I set the bug
> status?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FTBFS

has the process. CLOSED RAWHIDE generally.

However, check if unifdef is really needed. The kernel team knew it
was going to be orphaned, and said "that's OK, as the kernel tree has
its own copy that's maintained there." or somesuch. If not, letting
it stay dead is fine - desireable in fact.

--
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-12-2010, 05:39 AM
Eric Smith
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Looks like you've linked to the wrong bug.
>
Sorry, it was a typo. The correct bug is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511553
> From the description, it now builds from source, at least in rawhide.
> I think you want to Close Rawhide in that case.
>
Great, thanks!

Eric

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-12-2010, 05:42 AM
Eric Smith
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

Matt Domsch wrote:
> However, check if unifdef is really needed. The kernel team knew it
> was going to be orphaned, and said "that's OK, as the kernel tree has
> its own copy that's maintained there." or somesuch. If not, letting
> it stay dead is fine - desireable in fact.
>
What is the criteria for whether a Fedora package is "really needed" and
for which staying dead is "desirable"? I picked it up because I use it
myself; I had no idea that it had anything whatsoever to do with the
"kernel team", and I don't have any use for a "copy that's maintained
there".

Thanks,
Eric

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-12-2010, 08:38 AM
Till Maas
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:42:04PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
> Matt Domsch wrote:
> > However, check if unifdef is really needed. The kernel team knew it
> > was going to be orphaned, and said "that's OK, as the kernel tree has
> > its own copy that's maintained there." or somesuch. If not, letting
> > it stay dead is fine - desireable in fact.
> >
> What is the criteria for whether a Fedora package is "really needed" and
> for which staying dead is "desirable"? I picked it up because I use it
> myself; I had no idea that it had anything whatsoever to do with the
> "kernel team", and I don't have any use for a "copy that's maintained
> there".

If you need/use it and want to maintain it, you are free to do so. If
the kernel team knows a better alternative that you should consider,
then the package should be retired instead of just orphaned and an
explanation about why it was retired should be added to a dead.package
file in the CVS devel branch. Usually the latter is not done, so you can
only ask the previous maintainers. Nevertheless, having a "copy that's
maintained there" sounds like bad packaging practice.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-12-2010, 08:53 AM
Krzesimir Nowak
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 10:38 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> If you need/use it and want to maintain it, you are free to do so. If
> the kernel team knows a better alternative that you should consider,
> then the package should be retired instead of just orphaned and an
> explanation about why it was retired should be added to a dead.package
> file in the CVS devel branch. Usually the latter is not done, so you can
> only ask the previous maintainers. Nevertheless, having a "copy that's
> maintained there" sounds like bad packaging practice.
>
> Regards
> Till

Maybe it was retired or orphaned because unifdef was superseded by
sunifdef (which is packaged in fedora), which is now superseded by coan
[1] (which is not yet packaged in fedora)?

Krzesimir

[1] http://coan2.sourceforge.net/

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-12-2010, 04:05 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 17:36 -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
> The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS,
> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=51153>. I took it over,
> updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with
> Koji, and committed it. I'm not sure what to do about the Status field
> of the bug. I looked for relevant documentation on the bug lifecycle or
> practices in the Fedora wiki, but didn't really find anything useful.
> Is there such documentation? And if not, to what should I set the bug
> status?

The bug lifecycle documentation is here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow

it's linked extensively from the Bugzilla HOWTO, the QA Wiki section,
and also if you get to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html by clicking on a
field name in a bug, it has a note at the top - "Note: Bugs reported
against Fedora products have a slightly different life cycle which is
described in more detail here." - with a link to the Fedora page.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-14-2010, 03:28 AM
Eric Smith
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

Adam Williamson wrote:
> The bug lifecycle documentation is here:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow
>
> it's linked extensively from the Bugzilla HOWTO, the QA Wiki section,
> and also if you get to [...]
>
Great, thanks! Now I feel really dumb for not having found it on my
own, but somehow my efforts at searching the wiki didn't turn it up.

Eric

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-15-2010, 07:01 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 20:28 -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The bug lifecycle documentation is here:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow
> >
> > it's linked extensively from the Bugzilla HOWTO, the QA Wiki section,
> > and also if you get to [...]
> >
> Great, thanks! Now I feel really dumb for not having found it on my
> own, but somehow my efforts at searching the wiki didn't turn it up.

I should probably stick the word 'lifecycle' into it somewhere, as it
doesn't really show up if you search for that.

It's also worth noting that mediawiki's internal search really isn't
that great. I tend to search Google with 'site:fedoraproject.org'
instead of using the mediawiki search, it seems to do better.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org