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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-26-2007, 07:50 PM
"Jordan Mantha"
 
Default Using the "patch" tag for bugs

On Nov 26, 2007 8:04 AM, Emmet Hikory <persia@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Fellow Developers,
> Malone currently tracks a flag for bug attachments that indicate
> whether the bug is a patch or not, and we've a few URLs here and there
> that point to bug searches that use this flag to select patches from
> users that might be suitable for inclusion in the archive. Recently,
> I've had a couple new Contributors looking for ways to help mention to
> me that some of the bugs returned by these searches don't contain any
> patches, and my own investigations indicate that this mechanism seems
> to have about a 50% hit rate.
>

I'm all for having a nice clean way of seeing which bugs have patches.
I wonder though if the Launchpad system should be fixed rather than
having two systems (LP flag and tag). It's kind of annoying to have
two places/systems for the same thing.

-Jordan

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 11-27-2007, 12:56 AM
Matthew Paul Thomas
 
Default Using the "patch" tag for bugs

On Nov 27, 2007, at 5:04 AM, Emmet Hikory wrote:

...
Malone currently tracks a flag for bug attachments that indicate
whether the bug is a patch or not, and we've a few URLs here and there
that point to bug searches that use this flag to select patches from
users that might be suitable for inclusion in the archive. Recently,
I've had a couple new Contributors looking for ways to help mention to
me that some of the bugs returned by these searches don't contain any
patches, and my own investigations indicate that this mechanism seems
to have about a 50% hit rate.
...


If no-one's done it already, please report a bug giving specific
examples where Launchpad says a bug report contains a patch and it
doesn't.


Thanks
--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 11-28-2007, 07:26 AM
"Jordan Mantha"
 
Default Using the "patch" tag for bugs

On Nov 26, 2007 12:50 PM, Jordan Mantha <mantha@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 8:04 AM, Emmet Hikory <persia@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > Fellow Developers,
> > Malone currently tracks a flag for bug attachments that indicate
> > whether the bug is a patch or not, and we've a few URLs here and there
> > that point to bug searches that use this flag to select patches from
> > users that might be suitable for inclusion in the archive. Recently,
> > I've had a couple new Contributors looking for ways to help mention to
> > me that some of the bugs returned by these searches don't contain any
> > patches, and my own investigations indicate that this mechanism seems
> > to have about a 50% hit rate.
> >
>
> I'm all for having a nice clean way of seeing which bugs have patches.
> I wonder though if the Launchpad system should be fixed rather than
> having two systems (LP flag and tag). It's kind of annoying to have
> two places/systems for the same thing.
>

To this end I had a talk with Christian (kiko) about maybe some things
that can be improved. I've come up with the following list of bugs
that may help. Please feel free to add to the discussion:
1. repeated bug in search for bugs with patches -
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/35030
2. Can't mark a patch as obsolete - https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/123915
3. show patch icon or notification on the comments page -
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/172507
4. Rows in bug listings should indicate if a patch exists -
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/4780
5. reject non-code patch attachements - https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/172501
6. ability to convert a comment into a patch attachment -
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/172505

I also think it's useful to have a tag to indicate a "triaged" patch,
that is one that is really a patch and ready for a dev to look at.

-Jordan

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 11-28-2007, 07:30 AM
Daniel Holbach
 
Default Using the "patch" tag for bugs

On Mi, 2007-11-28 at 00:26 -0800, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> To this end I had a talk with Christian (kiko) about maybe some things
> that can be improved. I've come up with the following list of bugs
> that may help. Please feel free to add to the discussion:
> 1. repeated bug in search for bugs with patches -
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/35030
> 2. Can't mark a patch as obsolete - https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/123915
> 3. show patch icon or notification on the comments page -
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/172507
> 4. Rows in bug listings should indicate if a patch exists -
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/4780
> 5. reject non-code patch attachements - https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/172501
> 6. ability to convert a comment into a patch attachment -
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/172505

Good work! I'm sure this is going to make a change!


> I also think it's useful to have a tag to indicate a "triaged" patch,
> that is one that is really a patch and ready for a dev to look at.

I feel we should make use of http://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
in that case.

Have a nice day,
Dainel

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 11-28-2007, 08:00 AM
"Emmet Hikory"
 
Default Using the "patch" tag for bugs

On Mi, 2007-11-28 at 00:26 -0800, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> I also think it's useful to have a tag to indicate a "triaged" patch,
> that is one that is really a patch and ready for a dev to look at.

On Nov 28, 2007 5:30 PM, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> I feel we should make use of http://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
> in that case.

I think there is a gap between "this bug has a real patch, and
needs a developer to integrate & test" and "this bug has an attachment
that is a sponsorship request". For more complex bugs, it is not rare
for three or four candidate patches(1) to be passed back and forth
between developers(2) before a solution is agreed to be correct, and
there is anything suitable for upload.

I'm not opposed to using a team to track these, rather than a tag,
but believe the focus should be on getting the patches to those with
the technical skill to apply them and test them, rather than looking
at direct upload. Further, I do not believe that the sponsors queues
are the best place for anything that is not a candidate for immediate
upload: these queues are a tool by which people who do not have upload
rights may request upload, and not a mechanism to collect all
submitted patches.

1: traditional patches: not necessarily debdiffs
2: people who develop or maintain software: not necessarily members of
~ubuntu-dev

--
Emmet HIKORY

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 11-28-2007, 08:38 AM
Daniel Holbach
 
Default Using the "patch" tag for bugs

On Mi, 2007-11-28 at 18:00 +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> I'm not opposed to using a team to track these, rather than a tag,
> but believe the focus should be on getting the patches to those with
> the technical skill to apply them and test them, rather than looking
> at direct upload. Further, I do not believe that the sponsors queues
> are the best place for anything that is not a candidate for immediate
> upload: these queues are a tool by which people who do not have upload
> rights may request upload, and not a mechanism to collect all
> submitted patches.

Right now the Sponsoring Queue solves the problem of getting patches
reviewed (and getting them in shape) for packages that have no dedicated
maintainer by subscribing knowledgeable people to them. It's part of
what I do every day.

Maybe we could improve the process, but what I described above should be
a key feature of it.

Have a nice day,
Daniel

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 11-28-2007, 10:54 AM
"Emmet Hikory"
 
Default Using the "patch" tag for bugs

On Nov 27, 2007 10:56 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007, at 5:04 AM, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> > ...
> > Malone currently tracks a flag for bug attachments that indicate
> > whether the bug is a patch or not, and we've a few URLs here and there
> > that point to bug searches that use this flag to select patches from
> > users that might be suitable for inclusion in the archive. Recently,
> > I've had a couple new Contributors looking for ways to help mention to
> > me that some of the bugs returned by these searches don't contain any
> > patches, and my own investigations indicate that this mechanism seems
> > to have about a 50% hit rate.
> > ...
>
> If no-one's done it already, please report a bug giving specific
> examples where Launchpad says a bug report contains a patch and it
> doesn't.

I do not believe that this is a bug in launchpad, but rather a bug
in the bug reporter, as in every case I encountered, the attachment
had the patch flag set incorrectly. Interestingly enough, although I
was finding many before (as I said, around 50%), I'm not finding any
right now (in a very quick search). Perhaps the triage effort should
be focused on removing the patch flag where inappropriate, rather than
using a tag for the same purpose.

Note that a number of the incorrectly flagged "patches" were early
apport crash reports, so it may be as much tools (now fixed) as user
unfamiliarity that caused this. Perhaps, as I was triaging based on
least-recently-changed, it may be that I've already cleaned out most
of the problems, as newer tools and documentation have made this less
likely to occur.

Further, I suspect that resolution of bug #123915 (1) is a better
way to address the case where a patch was rejected or otherwise deemed
unsuitable in approach, rather than trying to tune launchpad to be
smart about what might be a patch.

1: https://bugs.launchpad.net/malone/+bug/123915

--
Emmet HIKORY

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 AM.

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