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 Masters Of The Universe

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-11-2009, 06:48 PM
Brian Murray
 
Default Needs Packaging bug reports

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:15:17AM -0500, Fabian Rodriguez wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brian Murray wrote:
> > As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification[1]
> > it was decided that all needs-packaging bug reports should have an
> > importance of wishlist. Subsequently, I've written a script using the
> > Launchpad API that will set the importance of almost all needs-packaging
> > bugs to wishlist.
> >
>
> I see some needs-packaging bug reports will not be given enough
> importance if this change goes through. For example:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/120576
>
> As a bug reviewer I'd probable go back and make this kind of bug
> Importance: Medium.
>
> About the script, it'd be nice if it also checks for consistency and
> adds the needs-packaging tag to bugs that have [needs-packaging] in
> their subject and vice versa.

Ensuring the subject of bugs that are tagged 'needs-packaging' actually
starts off with [needs-packaging] should be easy and can be done in the
same script.

The reverse, finding all the bugs with [needs-packaging] in the summary,
and ensuring they are tagged 'needs-packaging' is a bit more time
consuming. As I see it there are two possible entry points to find
these bugs:

1) using a Launchpad search for 'needs-packaging' ~4389 results
2) all bugs without a package ~3588

Both of these sets are significantly larger than the ~1400 bug reports
tagged needs-packaging. Unless, there is some other smaller set to
start off from I'm not certain the results would be worth it.

--
Brian Murray @ubuntu.com
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 02-12-2009, 10:40 AM
Stefan Potyra
 
Default Needs Packaging bug reports

Hi Brian,

On Wednesday 11 February 2009 20:34:38 Brian Murray wrote:
[..]
>
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:18:56PM -0800, Brian Murray wrote:
> > > As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification[1]
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > Barring any objections I plan on running this on the Friday the 13th,
> > > which will modify approximately 254 bug reports, and scheduling it to
> > > run weekly thereafter.
> >
> > I strongly object to both the specification and the result of you
> > running that script.
>
> I'm interested to hear and discuss your objections to both of these.

Sorry for not providing a rationale in the first place.

After reading the spec, I personally can't see any benefit in moving the
needs-packaging bugs around, but rather the drawback that documentation and
scripts (e.g. my personal completely messy script which tries to check wether
an upload fixes the right bugs - and hence has some heuristics for needs
packaging bugs as well) would be broken by that approach.

Furthermore, I also don't think that announcing most-wanted packages in forums
or blogs is necessarily a good thing.
On one side, this goes back to the lengthy discussion wether to shift the
scope away from packaging new things for motu-hopefuls to fixing bugs.
Additionally, this might create uncertainty to where to ask for packaging
reviews: During last? (or last but one?) feature freeze cycle, I've even seen
a FFe request for a package wich has only been discussed on the LP
needs-packaging bug (and which as a result had a number of beginner mistakes,
s.th. which I guess could have been sorted out much easier/earlier on with
revu).

Now, sorry, if I didn't understand it correctly, but if the script you intend
to run now only sets the priority to wishlist (and won't move bugs around),
then I don't object to this at all.

Cheers,
Stefan.

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 02-12-2009, 10:40 AM
Stefan Potyra
 
Default Needs Packaging bug reports

Hi Brian,

On Wednesday 11 February 2009 20:34:38 Brian Murray wrote:
[..]
>
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:18:56PM -0800, Brian Murray wrote:
> > > As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification[1]
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > Barring any objections I plan on running this on the Friday the 13th,
> > > which will modify approximately 254 bug reports, and scheduling it to
> > > run weekly thereafter.
> >
> > I strongly object to both the specification and the result of you
> > running that script.
>
> I'm interested to hear and discuss your objections to both of these.

Sorry for not providing a rationale in the first place.

After reading the spec, I personally can't see any benefit in moving the
needs-packaging bugs around, but rather the drawback that documentation and
scripts (e.g. my personal completely messy script which tries to check wether
an upload fixes the right bugs - and hence has some heuristics for needs
packaging bugs as well) would be broken by that approach.

Furthermore, I also don't think that announcing most-wanted packages in forums
or blogs is necessarily a good thing.
On one side, this goes back to the lengthy discussion wether to shift the
scope away from packaging new things for motu-hopefuls to fixing bugs.
Additionally, this might create uncertainty to where to ask for packaging
reviews: During last? (or last but one?) feature freeze cycle, I've even seen
a FFe request for a package wich has only been discussed on the LP
needs-packaging bug (and which as a result had a number of beginner mistakes,
s.th. which I guess could have been sorted out much easier/earlier on with
revu).

Now, sorry, if I didn't understand it correctly, but if the script you intend
to run now only sets the priority to wishlist (and won't move bugs around),
then I don't object to this at all.

Cheers,
Stefan.

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 02-12-2009, 02:37 PM
"Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT)"
 
Default Needs Packaging bug reports

Only speaking about the Launchpad bugs (I still have to familiarize
myself with the complete spec, and personally I'm not really happy
with having the needs-packaging bugs on Launchpad like now, but I'll
focus about the announcement made at the start of this thread now),
perhaps I'm missing something but I think there isn't anything
changing from how it has always been.

Bugs directly filed against the Ubuntu project, with the
"needs-packaging tag", importance "wishlist", usually containing
"[needs-packaging]" in the subject and, once someone has checked that
the request is valid, importance set to "confirmed" or "triaged". This
is how it's been since I've got involved with Ubuntu.

The script which Brian proposes to run is just going to help with this
(actually, some months ago I used to run two scripts myself for some
time -after asking on #ubuntu-bugs , where I only got positive
answers-, one which added the needs-packaging tag to those bugs whose
summary started with "[needs-packaging]" but didn't have it, and
another one which set needs-packaging bugs with no importance set to
"wishlist", after I got tired of doing that myself on dozens of bugs,
so Brian's idea is nothing new).

So, is the current/proposed way to handle needs-packaging bugs
perfect? Of course not, and we should probably look on how to improve
it, but I don't see how that's a reason to not make the current job
for triagers more easy until we come up with an improved workflow.

--
Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)
Ubuntu Developer. Debian Contributor.

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 02-12-2009, 02:37 PM
"Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT)"
 
Default Needs Packaging bug reports

Only speaking about the Launchpad bugs (I still have to familiarize
myself with the complete spec, and personally I'm not really happy
with having the needs-packaging bugs on Launchpad like now, but I'll
focus about the announcement made at the start of this thread now),
perhaps I'm missing something but I think there isn't anything
changing from how it has always been.

Bugs directly filed against the Ubuntu project, with the
"needs-packaging tag", importance "wishlist", usually containing
"[needs-packaging]" in the subject and, once someone has checked that
the request is valid, importance set to "confirmed" or "triaged". This
is how it's been since I've got involved with Ubuntu.

The script which Brian proposes to run is just going to help with this
(actually, some months ago I used to run two scripts myself for some
time -after asking on #ubuntu-bugs , where I only got positive
answers-, one which added the needs-packaging tag to those bugs whose
summary started with "[needs-packaging]" but didn't have it, and
another one which set needs-packaging bugs with no importance set to
"wishlist", after I got tired of doing that myself on dozens of bugs,
so Brian's idea is nothing new).

So, is the current/proposed way to handle needs-packaging bugs
perfect? Of course not, and we should probably look on how to improve
it, but I don't see how that's a reason to not make the current job
for triagers more easy until we come up with an improved workflow.

--
Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)
Ubuntu Developer. Debian Contributor.

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 02-13-2009, 04:08 PM
Brian Murray
 
Default Needs Packaging bug reports

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:40:56PM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On Wednesday 11 February 2009 20:34:38 Brian Murray wrote:
> [..]
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:18:56PM -0800, Brian Murray wrote:
> > > > As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification[1]
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > Barring any objections I plan on running this on the Friday the 13th,
> > > > which will modify approximately 254 bug reports, and scheduling it to
> > > > run weekly thereafter.
> > >
> > > I strongly object to both the specification and the result of you
> > > running that script.
> >
> > I'm interested to hear and discuss your objections to both of these.
>
> Sorry for not providing a rationale in the first place.

That's alright - thanks for taking the time to provide it!

> After reading the spec, I personally can't see any benefit in moving the
> needs-packaging bugs around, but rather the drawback that documentation and
> scripts (e.g. my personal completely messy script which tries to check wether
> an upload fixes the right bugs - and hence has some heuristics for needs
> packaging bugs as well) would be broken by that approach.

They aren't being moved at this point in time, that was the long term
goal but it is currently blocked on a Launchpad bug.

> Furthermore, I also don't think that announcing most-wanted packages in forums
> or blogs is necessarily a good thing.

There was some discussion about moving needs-packaging bug reports to
Brainstorm[1], partially because there is no way to gauge how many
people are interested in having a package. The purpose of the
'most-wanted' packages report is to provide that gauge. The
announcement part is a way of letting people know that the
'users_affected_count', activated by changing 'affectsmetoo', is
revealed / used somewhere. Additionally, having people use
'affectsmetoo' is a better idea than having me too comments.

> On one side, this goes back to the lengthy discussion wether to shift the
> scope away from packaging new things for motu-hopefuls to fixing bugs.
> Additionally, this might create uncertainty to where to ask for packaging
> reviews: During last? (or last but one?) feature freeze cycle, I've even seen
> a FFe request for a package wich has only been discussed on the LP
> needs-packaging bug (and which as a result had a number of beginner mistakes,
> s.th. which I guess could have been sorted out much easier/earlier on with
> revu).
>
> Now, sorry, if I didn't understand it correctly, but if the script you intend
> to run now only sets the priority to wishlist (and won't move bugs around),
> then I don't object to this at all.

Yes, it will only set the priority to wishlist and prepend the bug title
with '[needs-packaging]', provided some approximation of that doesn't
already exist in the bug title, to make them easier to spot in bug lists.

[1]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-October/004854.html

--
Brian Murray @ubuntu.com
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 02-13-2009, 04:08 PM
Brian Murray
 
Default Needs Packaging bug reports

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:40:56PM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On Wednesday 11 February 2009 20:34:38 Brian Murray wrote:
> [..]
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:18:56PM -0800, Brian Murray wrote:
> > > > As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification[1]
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > Barring any objections I plan on running this on the Friday the 13th,
> > > > which will modify approximately 254 bug reports, and scheduling it to
> > > > run weekly thereafter.
> > >
> > > I strongly object to both the specification and the result of you
> > > running that script.
> >
> > I'm interested to hear and discuss your objections to both of these.
>
> Sorry for not providing a rationale in the first place.

That's alright - thanks for taking the time to provide it!

> After reading the spec, I personally can't see any benefit in moving the
> needs-packaging bugs around, but rather the drawback that documentation and
> scripts (e.g. my personal completely messy script which tries to check wether
> an upload fixes the right bugs - and hence has some heuristics for needs
> packaging bugs as well) would be broken by that approach.

They aren't being moved at this point in time, that was the long term
goal but it is currently blocked on a Launchpad bug.

> Furthermore, I also don't think that announcing most-wanted packages in forums
> or blogs is necessarily a good thing.

There was some discussion about moving needs-packaging bug reports to
Brainstorm[1], partially because there is no way to gauge how many
people are interested in having a package. The purpose of the
'most-wanted' packages report is to provide that gauge. The
announcement part is a way of letting people know that the
'users_affected_count', activated by changing 'affectsmetoo', is
revealed / used somewhere. Additionally, having people use
'affectsmetoo' is a better idea than having me too comments.

> On one side, this goes back to the lengthy discussion wether to shift the
> scope away from packaging new things for motu-hopefuls to fixing bugs.
> Additionally, this might create uncertainty to where to ask for packaging
> reviews: During last? (or last but one?) feature freeze cycle, I've even seen
> a FFe request for a package wich has only been discussed on the LP
> needs-packaging bug (and which as a result had a number of beginner mistakes,
> s.th. which I guess could have been sorted out much easier/earlier on with
> revu).
>
> Now, sorry, if I didn't understand it correctly, but if the script you intend
> to run now only sets the priority to wishlist (and won't move bugs around),
> then I don't object to this at all.

Yes, it will only set the priority to wishlist and prepend the bug title
with '[needs-packaging]', provided some approximation of that doesn't
already exist in the bug title, to make them easier to spot in bug lists.

[1]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-October/004854.html

--
Brian Murray @ubuntu.com
--
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 05:15 PM.

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