RFC: 0-day bump requests

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: 0-day bump requests

Jeroen Roovers-3
     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.
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
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.

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Joe Peterson-3
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
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Thomas Anderson-10
In reply to this post by Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
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.

attachment0 (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Torsten Rehn
In reply to this post by Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
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 <[hidden email]>
Gentoo AMD64 Arch Tester
http://scel.info

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Marius Mauch
In reply to this post by Jeroen Roovers-3
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[hidden email]> 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
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Duncan-42
In reply to this post by Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <[hidden email]> 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

--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Luis Francisco Araujo
In reply to this post by Jeroen Roovers-3
-----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)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhteEsACgkQNir3WYj9aLrrjgCfZZMejTL8o0VtHCWnD1s48SuJ
ZjkAn3X0aW0uq3cwF7gSl8aZv8HVB309
=L06A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Sven Köhler
In reply to this post by Jeroen Roovers-3
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

--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Hans de Graaff-2
In reply to this post by Marius Mauch
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:31 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers <[hidden email]> 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

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Gilles Dartiguelongue-3
Le vendredi 04 juillet 2008 à 07:07 +0200, Hans de Graaff a écrit :

> On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:31 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
> > Jeroen Roovers <[hidden email]> 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'm 100% seconding that. We, the gnome guys, have at least 2 ways of
being notified of package updates (RSS & mailing-list). So for most of
the packages we manage, a 0-day bump request is annoying ("yes we know,
but we haven't had time to get to it, so please don't bother us..."). If
we aren't done one week later, then it's probably that we missed it on
our radar or we haven't had enough man power at this time. In either
case it's fine to fill a bug at this time.

--
Gilles Dartiguelongue <[hidden email]>
Gentoo

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Christian Faulhammer-4
In reply to this post by Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
Hi,

"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <[hidden email]>:
> 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.

 This fixes a non-problem.  Why overload metadata.xml with information
that will rot there probably, because nobody thinks of it?  There is
only very few 0-day bump-requests, so just leave them until you fix
it.  I am not annoyed by it and having some policy like "Only allow
them when the relative moon humidity is below 0.434" will irritate
bug filers, as they won't check and it burdens
bug-wranglers if they have to check before.

V-Li

--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Petteri Räty-2
In reply to this post by Jeroen Roovers-3
Jeroen Roovers kirjoitti:
>
> -----
> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?
>

I don't mind as I don't have the time to follow upstreams that closely
for the hundreds of Java packages out there.

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

I think the best approach is to discourage them from filing the bump
requests in before a week or so has passed but assign the bug to the
maintainer. Closing it has the problem that I doubt most users remember
to check for closed bugs when filing bump requests so this will lead to
more bump requests bugs being filed on the same version.

Regards,
Petter


signature.asc (268 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Ferris McCormick
In reply to this post by Jeroen Roovers-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>      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?
>
Speaking only for myself as an arch developer.

It depends on the reason.  For example, recently there was a day 0
request for a freetype (I believe) stable request because current
stable didn't work is some such.  That sort of thing is OK.  Obviously
security bugs require quick processing.  New keyword/re-keyword
requests are OK (but then of course we don't go stable).

Otherwise, we will put the package into the normal cycle whenever it
enters the tree.
 
>
> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
> version bump requests?
>
>
Makes no difference to me, but I am not a package maintainer.  I am
speaking from an arch point of view.  We only ask that the package
maintainer make sure it at least seems to work before they bump the
version.

(It's different when the new version is not compatible with the current
version, but that's off topic for this thread, I think.  I don't ever
want to see that sort of thing.)

> -----
>
> 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.
> --
> [hidden email] mailing list
>

I doubt that this addresses what you are asking, but in case it is
useful,
Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[hidden email]>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkht270ACgkQQa6M3+I///edXwCfTPiTZ56Aw9ViJRs8hJTm8DrQ
7g4An1NdsU/hLteSFLmxT47eeWDEGehm
=62NW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
éí¢‡^¾X¬¶ÈžÚ(¢¸&j)bž b²
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
In reply to this post by Jeroen Roovers-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeroen Roovers wrote:

>      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?

Since current mores make sure there are not so many, I don't mind them.

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

To prevent every package from getting a 0-day bump request, I'd say give it a
day or two at least, unless you have some info other than that there is a new
version. For example that the current ebuild still works with the new version or
that it doesn't. It helps with gauging which bumps are trivial and which aren't.

If someone only wants to tell me some new version is out, I prefer they ping me
on irc.

> -----
>
> 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.

Marijn

- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkht4WkACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xJ6QCfbX/IvrzARx3AY2FzAHW4sD2P
TasAn2NTD0c+HE0ehaG3wd9bFdk+yzSh
=pj1H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Luca Barbato
In reply to this post by Jeroen Roovers-3
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?

They are useful as reminder.

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

I won't prevent anybody to send them, but I can understand why people
would rather like to have less bugs in their mailbox.

lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Jeroen Roovers-3
In reply to this post by Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:26:13 +0100
"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

Its' half an idea, in my opinion. We need a process, not just a tag in a
file. The tag in the file would tell us how a bug should perhaps be
treated, and metadata.xml is an excellent place to concentrate such
information, but to tell a bug wrangler (or anyone else) to "do nothing
for X units of time" isn't going to work. As for what the tag might
tell us, I think leaving bugs on hold for a few days is not the right
approach - users (as well as, say, fellow developers and upstreams)
shouldn't have to "artificially" wait to make their release
announcements and bug wranglers shouldn't be expected to keep these
bugs on their own lists in some artificial sense - it just means more
work for everyone and more delay in communications between users and
developers.

I am currently thinking of making a very broad division between
bump requests for more or less "independent" packages on the one hand,
and packages that (clearly) belong to a suite (KDE and GNOME are good
examples, although the latter team "owns" quite a few independantly
useable packages) or to wildly popular packages that announces releases
weeks to months ahead (Mozilla).

I personally think that bump requests of the "KDE 5 OMG" and "WHEREIS
FF4?" kind are to be RESOLVED as LATER forthwith. That saves a lot of
dupe checking as well! :)


Kind regards,
     JeR
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Robin H. Johnson-2
In reply to this post by Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:26:13AM +0100, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
> 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.
If used, what about including and reviving the project that scraped
Freshmeat and other spots looking for new releases automatically?

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail     : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

attachment0 (337 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Tiziano Müller-3
Robin H. Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:26:13AM +0100, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
>> 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.
> If used, what about including and reviving the project that scraped
> Freshmeat and other spots looking for new releases automatically?
>
-> GLEP 46, already approved. Need XSD to implement it properly (see my
other comment on).


--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

lack-3
In reply to this post by Jeroen Roovers-3
Jeroen Roovers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?

I think any version bump request at any time is worthwhile.  The earlier
the better!
 
> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
> version bump requests?

No.  And I honestly don't understand other devs' reluctance for 0-day
bug requests.  Maybe I just don't have enough packages to be annoyed by
the bug-spam, or maybe I'm just too lazy to check upstream's sites all
day long, but I like to know that people are excited about the packages
I maintain.

Here's an interesting solution for those who find it annoying though:
Just file your own 0-day bump request in bugzilla. In theory some users
would find this and just CC themselves on it. Other users could be
shushed with the shame of the DUPLICATE. Everyone wins!

If someone had huge amounts of time, having a special bugzilla
interface to show current, pending, and requested versions of each
package (Sort of like an interactive packages.g.o?) may be a neat
project... maybe next year's GSOC?

P.S. Sorry about the lateness of the post - My ISP's comcastic smtp
server decided it wasn't going to work all weekend long.

--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
12