[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Mass bugfiling potential: 'rules' with space



On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:08:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:51:52AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > While this does not break things on Linux, it *does* cause breakage on
> > NetBSD, due to differences in the script handlers. So far, the number
> > of packages isn't terribly high - but it's a couple, in under a hundred
> > packages, which (if it holds - no good way to tell) is potentially a few
> > hundred packages, before all is said and done.
> 
> Can you come up with some real figures first?  Various folks have tools
> that run on archive and scan the entire archive for this or that.
> Perhaps you could team up with one of them to get this check run.

Well, a lintian/linda check was suggested - this would both catch a number
of the packages without bugs being filed, and give the ability to scan the
archives for it. I'll talk to the maintainers of such.

> Once we have concrete figures about how many bugs will need to be filed,
> it will be easier to grope towards a consensus about mass bug filing.
> 
> Also, one way to mitigate a glut of bug reports might be to break it up
> a little bit.  For instance, spread the process out over 5 weeks or so,
> re-running the scan each time so you don't file bugs that have already
> been fixed:
> 
> week 1) all packages with this bug of "required" priority
> week 2) all packages with this bug of "important" priority
> week 3) all packages with this bug of "standard" priority
> week 4) all packages with this bug of "optional" priority
> week 5) all packages with this bug of "extra" priority

At the moment, the intent was largely 'as I find them', which is rather
slower than this. Granted, the speed probably goes up significantly if we
do an archive scan or if I get an autobuilder working for netbsd-i386. (At
the moment, the Linux-isms of wanna-build are making me consider writing
one that is strictly Perl and works with a minimum of things not found in
build-essential, but that may just be frustration talking...)

> Of course, these sets aren't all the same size, but that's not exactly
> the point of doing it this way; the higher-priority packages are more
> important to a bootstrapping environment anyway.  Also, it gives the
> maintainers of the many likely affected "optional" packages a good three
> weeks to notice the coming storm, assuming they update their systems
> from time to time and use apt-listchanges, or read d-d-c.  If they don't
> do either of those things you're unlikely to be able to get their
> attention anyway, via any means.  You could file a bug today and a year
> from now it still wouldn't be fixed.
> 
> The other option is of course just to break up the mass-file into m
> groups of approximately n packages each.
> 
> My gut feeling is that "n" should be no more than approximately 25, but
> I can't articulate my reasons beyond it just feeling instinctually
> "about right".  No doubt others will have differing instincts.  I'm sure
> that for some folks, any 2 bugs against different packages reporting the
> same thing counts as "mass-filing".  But we can ignore those people.  :)

Heh. Well, I suspect the total will end up being high enough that, all
together, it *is* 'mass'. Just possibly spread out over time.

> Anyway, I support your initiative here.  Our rules files *should* be
> conservative in what they generate, so let's get rid of these stupid
> extraneous spaces.
> 
> Vim users might want to put the following into their .vimrc files.
> These settings will make you a better person. ;-)
> 
> :set listchars=tab:»­,trail:·
> :set list

As noted in my prior message, I think this will, practically, probably end
up being fixed on NetBSD simply because *other* scripts are also likely to
break, and it's not being liberal about what it accepts. However, wishlist
bugs for conservative in sending (especially if I can convince the lint*
tool maintainers to add checks, and give it a while for folks to notice)
would probably not be unreasonable. Certainly it isn't a deep and abiding
crisis of any sort.
-- 
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Attachment: pgpY4hCkiX6kC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: