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

Re: Botched mass bug filing (Re: Packaging _still_ wasteful for many large packages)

Matt Zimmerman writes:
>In the beginning of the thread, the proposal was to only consider larger
>binary packages (.deb >= 10MB), of which there are only about 150 total in
>the archive (and surely not all of these meet the other criteria).  He even
>posted a list:
>which only has 14 source packages in it, for an upper bound of 14 wishlist
>bugs.  This seemed like a perfectly reasonable proposition to me, and it
>received some support from other members of the mailing list as well.  I
>think that the archive size savings in that scenario were well worth the
>potential Packages file bloat (surely less than 1k in Packages.gz).
>Then, DURING THE PROCESS of filing these bugs, and without ANY further
>discussion, Steve changed his mind:

Hardly - there's several more mails in that thread. I looked at
several more packages with different criteria, and then backed down
twice from the largest number of bugs to file (400 to 242 to
144). Possibly I should have been stricter still. Discussion on the
list seemed to have finished, and I had several mails from people
asking for advice on how to fix what they agreed were obvious bugs in
their packages.

>completely changing the criteria, resulting in hundreds of bugs being filed,

Don't exaggerate - 144 is not "hundreds".

>against packages like the ~1MB moon-lander.  The bugs were also incorrectly
>filed with Severity: normal, and sent to submit@ rather than maintonly@.

And Josip said use Severity: normal. Yes, I should have used maintonly
and some of these bugs were over-zealous. Sorry for those. But I've
seen generally positive feedback both here and in private mail...

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm
 afraid I'll miss my stop" -- Vivek Dasmohapatra

Reply to: