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

Re: BHS: Bug help system

On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:37:46AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> IMHO Debian should develop a way of
> a) systematically pushing bug fixes even for non-rc bugs i.e. maybe have
>    a list of bugs tagged "patch" and a policy that NMU's are admissible
>    if a maintainer has gone X week without any comment on a patch, even
>    when it's not rc

Um, NMU's already *are* permitted for non-RC bugs. I've NMU'd fixes for
wishlist bugs before. It's just not encouraged, so that people's precious
time is spent more on the more important RC bugs. Any NMU's are OK as long
as proper etiquette is followed (as described in the developers'

Of course, it's another story if the maintainer rejects an NMU... but in
that case, it's presumably because there's a good reason to do so, and the
fact that the maintainer responded means he's not MIA and probably is
taking proper care of the package.

> b) collecting the work applicants do on bugs or accept that fixing bugs
>    is not something non-maintainers will be helping out with.

While it'd be nice to have the BTS keep a per-person list of who submitted
what patch, the applicant *could* just keep a list of bugs he helped with,
y'know. The BTS does keep a log of these things; so it's just a matter of
keeping track of bug numbers.

> For manpages point b) certainly applies. Also, it suffers the same
> problem as orphaned packages: It's thoroughly unattractive, which is why
> people claiming to maintain packages don't care about them. 

It may be unattractive to many, but some people (like yours truly) just
like writing manpages. I've submitted several manpages to the BTS, some
have been gladly accepted, others have been ignored (mostly due to MIA
maintainers, so the package subsequently gets NMU'd).

Now having said all that, I do agree that current NMU procedures could do
with some massaging. It seems a bit pushing it to require at least 6 weeks
to NMU a wishlist fix (2-4 weeks after submitting patch, 2 weeks to
confirm maintainer is MIA, 2 weeks in delayed upload queue). Each step in
itself is reasonable; you don't want to encourage hasty or careless NMU's,
but added together, it seems a bit too tedious.


My program has no bugs! Only undocumented features...

Attachment: pgpHe5oPbeteG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: