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

Re: a forth release?

Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de> wrote:

> Hi, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Furthermore, it would be very hard to tell whether a newly filed bug for
>> sure does *not* apply to the version in testing.
> Isn't somebody working on tagging bug reports with version numbers?
> The reporter could then indicate if the bug has always existed,
> it's a broken new feature (which doesn't affect anything else), or a
> regression.
> Granted that this won't be foolproof... but probably good enough.

Speaking for my packages: Not good enough. With about half of the bugs
in tetex-*, it takes a couple of days (or weeks) until we have sorted
out whether it's a local misconfiguration (you don't imagine what people
do...), a user error in the usage of TeX packages, or a real bug. Only
then (and if it's a real bug) can we check the versions it applies to,
and tag the bug accordingly.

Usually this won't happen until the next bug report drops in, also
unclear, and also with unsufficient info to tag it with a version.

By the way, one wouldn't want wishlist bugs to prevent a package going
into "candidate", would one - most wishlist bugs are just an indication
that a package is being used. But then, many bugs come in with
inadequate severities. I think we've even downgraded an "important" bug
to wishlist. I really don't think "bug reports in the last n months" is
an adequate criterion for the quality of a package.

And this doesn't solve the problem that you would need to artificially
keep new uploads out of testing. 

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

Reply to: