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

Re: Re: MIA, Incompetent and holiday-loving maintainers (was: Request for NMUs.)

Nathanael Nerode said:
Another unfortunately common maintainer 'attitude problem' is the bug
accumulation problem.  That is "I'll fix this trivial-to-fix bug when I
 fix the other  XXX bugs, and it's not worth uploading until I do."
This  leaves trivial-to-fix bugs open for months or even years longer
than  they need to be.  It's simply the wrong way to operate.  :-/
However,  it seems to be firmly stuck in some people's heads.  Remember
the  mantra: release early, release often?  It applies here.  I have no
idea  how to fix this mental block, however.

Matt Palmer wrote:
I do this, I think for conservation of version numbers, bandwidth, and
archive resources.   There's also the issue of propagating *something* to
> testing every now and then.  <g>

Yeah, actually this is quite reasonable behavior with 'minor' and 'normal' bugs, and even sometimes reasonable with 'important' bugs. If I'd specified "trivial-to-fix RELEASE CRITICAL bugs", would my point make more sense? :-)

  It's not so much of an issue as long as
there is a plan to upload in n days, and the maintainer lets people know
what's going on - I use the pending tag for this.
Quite right as well -- provided n isn't too large! :-) If n=100, this is probably not a good plan. ;-)

On the larger matter of NMUs, one way to sharpen up everyone's act would
be to say that an NMU to delayed-n can happen for any bug in the BTS with
a patch against it which hasn't been "touched" for more than perhaps 10-n
days, no notification needed.  By "touched" I mean that there hasn't been
maintainer activity on the matter - either a comment about the bug or the
patch, or a pending tag.  The 10-n bit means that you can upload to
delayed-7 after 3 days, or just put it straight in after 10 days.  And
maintainers aren't allowed to complain in any way about the NMU.  <g>
This idea actually approximates what I was thinking of, although I guess I was thinking more conservatively. :-)

Reply to: