On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:55:58 Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> >>> which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
> >>
> >> Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current release
> >> or it is not. Telling users to get it from Rawhide was never a valid
> >> resolution. It is a workaround in some very small cases.
> >
> > For example bug report - typo in SPEC file - it should be fixed in
> > Rawhide, but no need to push this update to current releases.
>
> But why would an end user be worried about a typo in a spec file?

Other developer, not provenpackager one?

Jaroslav

--
Jaroslav ŘeznÃ*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On 31/03/10 12:25, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:55:58 Frank Murphy wrote:
>> On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>> On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>>>>> which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current release
>>>> or it is not. Telling users to get it from Rawhide was never a valid
>>>> resolution. It is a workaround in some very small cases.
>>>
>>> For example bug report - typo in SPEC file - it should be fixed in
>>> Rawhide, but no need to push this update to current releases.
>>
>> But why would an end user be worried about a typo in a spec file?
>
> Other developer, not provenpackager one?
>
> Jaroslav
>

But isn't the run of the thread about "normal user" and bugs.
Closing or otherwise.

--
Regards,

Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded, Fedora.x86_64
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 13:32:24 Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 31/03/10 12:25, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:55:58 Frank Murphy wrote:
> >> On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>> On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> >>>>> which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current release
> >>>> or it is not. Telling users to get it from Rawhide was never a valid
> >>>> resolution. It is a workaround in some very small cases.
> >>>
> >>> For example bug report - typo in SPEC file - it should be fixed in
> >>> Rawhide, but no need to push this update to current releases.
> >>
> >> But why would an end user be worried about a typo in a spec file?
> >
> > Other developer, not provenpackager one?
> >
> > Jaroslav
>
> But isn't the run of the thread about "normal user" and bugs.
> Closing or otherwise.

Who is "normal", "ordinary" user? Remembers me an election campaign in Czech
rep right now. I hope I'm not that one "ordinary man" as targeted by one party
;-)

The typo issue was only example, even "ordinary" (I don't like it) users could
fill bug report that there's possibility to fix it in Rawhide only. Not
everything can be backported etc...

Jaroslav
--
Jaroslav ŘeznÃ*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>
>> If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
>> close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
>
> Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE?
Because it is how s user perceives it.

His bug is not fixed in the Fedora release he filed the bug against.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On 03/31/2010 05:50 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
>>> close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
>>
>> Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE?
> Because it is how s user perceives it.

I don't think engaging in mind reading on behalf of users is a good
argument. I fixed it in Rawhide and I believe informing the user is
important. You want me to add a comment and I think the status on
bugzilla should also indicate that.

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

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 14:20:40 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
> >> close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
> >
> > Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE?
>
> Because it is how s user perceives it.
>
> His bug is not fixed in the Fedora release he filed the bug against.

So there should be a COMMENT why it's closed in rawhide only - usually rawhide
bugs should be closed in rawhide. But sometimes the fix could lead to difficult
backport etc... So the only way is to fix it in Rawhide only.
--
Jaroslav ŘeznÃ*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On 03/31/2010 02:28 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 05:50 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
>>>> close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
>>>>
>>> Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE?
>>>
>> Because it is how s user perceives it.
>>
> I don't think engaging in mind reading on behalf of users is a good
> argument. I fixed it in Rawhide and I believe informing the user is
> important.
Well this is what I call "cheating the user" and "maintainer lying at
themselves about their package's state" and why I consider "FIXED
RAWHIDE" to be non-helpful.

The maintainer did not fix the bug a "reporter" filed, but left it
unresolved and fixed another bug: Another incarnation of the same bug
waiting to hit the users in the next release.

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

On 03/31/2010 06:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> Well this is what I call "cheating the user" and "maintainer lying at
> themselves about their package's state" and why I consider "FIXED
> RAWHIDE" to be non-helpful.
>
> The maintainer did not fix the bug a "reporter" filed, but left it
> unresolved and fixed another bug: Another incarnation of the same bug
> waiting to hit the users in the next release.
>

That's just your perception and I don't see any consensus on that. The
bug is fixed and fixed only in the development branch and this is a
fairly common thing to do for upstream projects as well as
distributions. because the fix is too small or too intrusive. As long as
the user is informed about the reason, the status is just fine.

Rahul

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

On 31/03/10 13:34, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 14:20:40 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
>>>> close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
>>>
>>> Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE?
>>
>> Because it is how s user perceives it.
>>
>> His bug is not fixed in the Fedora release he filed the bug against.
>
> So there should be a COMMENT why it's closed in rawhide only - usually rawhide
> bugs should be closed in rawhide. But sometimes the fix could lead to difficult
> backport etc... So the only way is to fix it in Rawhide only.

As an end user a comment as such would be welcome.
If' it's important enough to the end user.
They are more informed.


--
Regards,

Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded, Fedora.x86_64
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's just your perception and I don't see any consensus on that. *The
> bug is fixed and fixed only in the development branch and this is a
> fairly common thing to do for upstream projects as well as
> distributions. because the fix is too small or too intrusive. As long as
> the user is informed about the reason, the status is just fine.

I'm not sure its always fine. Nor am I sure that its ever a slap in
the face. The truth is is probably in between. There is probably
something to be said about tracking deficiencies accurately on a
release by release basis from a non-maintainer point of view.

Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we
can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects
and which of those release branches the fix is provided.


-jef"
<Miracle Max/>It just so happens that your bug here is only MOSTLY
dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead.
Mostly dead is slightly alive</Miracle Max>
"spaleta
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel