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 > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-03-2008, 11:16 PM
Jeroen Roovers
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

Hi fellow developers,


it seems I've run into a minor issue with fellow bug wrangler carlo
(who has been putting a lot of work into that, for which we should all
be grateful).

Carsten has a cut-and-paste message that he posts in comments to
version bump bug reports that he finds have been filed on the day the
software version in question was released/announced. The gist of the
message is that none of or most ebuild developers do not like these
"0-day requests" and that users (and developers) should refrain from
filing them on the same day. Waiting a week would be OK, the message
seems to say.

Being an ebuild developer myself, I have to say that I do not hold that
stance and that I welcome early version bump requests. Therefore, I
refrain from adding such messages to the bugs that I wrangle and indeed
welcome any bump requests[1].

Finding myself in conflict with someone I have come to share a certain
workload with, notably someone who has a few more years of Gentoo
experience, I wonder what the majority of our ebuild developers
actually think. In that spirit, I hope the following questions are
neutral enough for everyone to *not* start a flamewar over this.


-----
1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?


2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
version bump requests?


-----

I know, it's not a particularly good survey, but I hope the plenty and
diversity of your answers will shed more light on the matter.


Thank you and kind regards,
JeR


[1] In fact I regularly use the opportunity to check on the HOMEPAGE
whether the release was security related, and I assign directly to
security@ when that is the case (CC'ing the package's maintainers) and
perhaps pasting ChangeLog or advisory info in a comment.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-03-2008, 11:26 PM
"Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon"
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 01:16 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?

If it is for software where I am also upstream (Audacious for example),
it does tend to annoy me when people try their utmost to file bug
reports before I commit my ebuild. (I have yet to miss a release by more
then 6 hours)

> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
> version bump requests?

For things like the nVidia drivers I do welcome it. The time I can spend
trawling upstream sites for new releases is limited.

Just an idea:
How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are welcome?
It's more of an individual developer preference, but that seems the right place for it.

Regards,
Tony V.
 
Old 07-03-2008, 11:30 PM
Joe Peterson
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
> The time I can spend
> trawling upstream sites for new releases is limited.

Same here - I would never mind getting a 0-day bump request, since
someone else might have noticed before I did that a new version is
available.

> Just an idea:
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are welcome?
> It's more of an individual developer preference, but that seems the right place for it.

It might make sense if the default were that 0-day is OK (especially if
most devs don't mind). If not, then the tag could specifiy the number
of days to wait...

-Joe
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-03-2008, 11:52 PM
Thomas Anderson
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:26:13AM +0100, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
> > 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
> > version bump requests?
> Just an idea:
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are welcome?
> It's more of an individual developer preference, but that seems the right place for it.
>
> Regards,
> Tony V.

I think Tony's metadata.xml idea is perhaps the proper way to handle
this issue.

As for your questions, I like getting bump requests as soon as possible, as I can't check
upstream's website every day or two. One thing to watch out for is
a huge amount duplicates.
 
Old 07-04-2008, 12:08 AM
Torsten Rehn
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

On Friday 04 July 2008, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are
> welcome?

People obviously don't care about what it says on the website, why should they
start looking into metadata.xml?

I think we should remove the useless restrictions on filing bump requests and
welcome users to open bugs. Closing (valid) bugs feels good and is also sort
of a psychological reward for the user who opened the bug, perhaps
encouraging them to stay in direct contact with Gentoo and contribute other,
less trivial work.

--
Torsten Rehn <scel@xdap.org>
Gentoo AMD64 Arch Tester
http://scel.info
 
Old 07-04-2008, 12:31 AM
Marius Mauch
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore.

> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?

I guess like with most people it depends
a) If I'm already aware of the new version, or would have noticed it
myself very soon I'd get a bit annoyed by them
b) How the request is worded. Is it a demand "$foo has been released 5
minutes ago, why isn't it in the tree yet?!?"), or just a friendly
notification, possibly including helpful hints about changes (new deps
or configure options for example).
c) The nature of the release. If the release is "important" (e.g.
because it contains fixes for security or data corruption issues, or
problems affecting many users) then I'm more likely to appreciate an
early notification.

> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
> version bump requests?

Not in general, only if they are worded in some way offensive or don't
contain useful information. But that applies to almost any bug report.

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-04-2008, 12:35 AM
Duncan
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

"Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon" <chainsaw@gentoo.org> posted
1215127573.4067.7.camel@localhost, excerpted below, on Fri, 04 Jul 2008
00:26:13 +0100:

>> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
>> version bump requests?

AFAIK, it has been at least informal policy to discourage bump requests
for the first week or two. After that, it's fair game, but of course
check for dups b4 filing.

> Just an idea:
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests
> are welcome? It's more of an individual developer preference, but that
> seems the right place for it.

While I like the /idea/ of a metadata tag, all in all, I think a blanket
policy remains best (read least confusing). Make it 72 hours or a week
or whatever. Devs who know and prefer not to be bothered after that can
file their own bug, thus letting people know /they/ know, and giving
people a place to CC for updates.

BTW, is there a supported and easily user usable metadata viewer.
Something at the level of gentoolkit? I've not seen or read of such a
thing, which indicates it's likely pretty obscure if so. What good would
a metadata tag do if it's not info exposed to the users? Practically,
that's just more confusing.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-04-2008, 01:09 AM
Luis Francisco Araujo
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeroen Roovers wrote:
| -----
| 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?
|
|

It's generally fine with me; though I would handle it differently
depending upon the situation.

For example, sometimes these version bumps require some researching or
testing for some fix or feature, and I really like to test or check out
that first by myself, in such a cases, it could take a while for me to
version bump and I also try to keep the user informed about it through
the bug report (it has worked fine for me so far). If it is a straight
bump with minimal changes, I could take care of it immediately , in
either cases, I don't care the user filing an early request ... as long
as they don't care how long it might take for me to get it into portage :-)

| 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
| version bump requests?
|

No. It's fine with me.

| -----
|
| I know, it's not a particularly good survey, but I hope the plenty and
| diversity of your answers will shed more light on the matter.
|
|
| Thank you and kind regards,
| JeR
|
|
| [1] In fact I regularly use the opportunity to check on the HOMEPAGE
| whether the release was security related, and I assign directly to
| security@ when that is the case (CC'ing the package's maintainers) and
| perhaps pasting ChangeLog or advisory info in a comment.


- --

Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org"
Gentoo Linux

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhteEsACgkQNir3WYj9aLrrjgCfZZMejTL8o0 VtHCWnD1s48SuJ
ZjkAn3X0aW0uq3cwF7gSl8aZv8HVB309
=L06A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-04-2008, 01:58 AM
Sven Köhler
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

I'd like to add a few words from the users perspective:


-----
1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?


I hope developers are not annoyed - well, sometimes the words chosen are
maybe a bit too offensive.


I like these bump requests. I add myself as a CC and wait for some email
in my inbox saying "it's in the tree" like most devs like to express it.
Unfortunatly, i still have to wait half on hour, until the ebuild is
available in the mirrors.



Here's my little theory why there are these 0-day bump requests:

Gentoo Maintainers seem to be very different. There are packages (opera
for example) where we're offered the latest of the latest (even betas
and pre-releases and stuff), and new versions are in portage before
you've read the news on your favourite news-site.
And on the other hand, there are packages like filezilla (to just name
an example) where it took ages to get a new version. In addition,
filezilla is one of the softwares that shouts at you: "there is a new
version of me available. get it now!"
And on the third hand (damn, humans only have two) there are important
releases like pidgin 2.4.3 which has fixed the ICQ login issue. You saw
the bump-request coming, didn't you?



2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
version bump requests?
-----


Oh please don't discourage bump-requests, even if they are 0-day. I like
them because I CC to them.



Regards,
Sven

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-04-2008, 05:07 AM
Hans de Graaff
 
Default RFC: 0-day bump requests

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:31 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore.

I am, and Marius said all the things that I would have said. :-)

One of the reasons that it depends is also that my own involvement which
packages varies. Some things I track closely including involvement with
upstream, and then a 0-day bump can be a bit annoying since I'm already
quite aware of the bump. Other packages I've only taken up because
otherwise they would be without any maintainer, and I may only check
them every 6 months or so. Getting any bump request for them (0-day or
otherwise) is useful.

I also thought that the idea behind discouragement of 0-day bump
requests was to keep bugzilla a bit more uncluttered with bugs that
should normally be closed in a very short time anyway.

Kind regards,

Hans
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:51 AM.

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