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

Re: Attempted summary and thoughts



On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:27:55PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 
wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > *what's* in it.  Just because it has a patch tag doesn't mean it's
> > > necessarily any higher-quality of a bug unless it's been triaged.
> >
> > It may not be higher quality, but it almost definately is higher
> > effort.
> >
> > Correspondingly the frustration on part of the bug/patch submitter when
> > there's no response at all will be higher also.
>
> In my experience the correlation between the patch tag and the quality
> of the report is fairly weak.  

that wasn't the poin I was trying to make :)

> Often a clear and lucid bug report that outlines the required fix won't
> have the patch tag because it hasn't got an a literal patch.  

> Often a patch is the first thing someone thought of and has serious
> problems or requires noticable effort to understand due to a lack of
> commentary. 

the point I was attempting to get across is that:
- somebody supplying a patch is somebody who'se actively _trying_ to help. 
  -> supplying a literal patch obviously is not the only way to do this (you
     outlined another class above), it's just one way that's easily
     spottable because of the patch tag
- the fact that someone is actively helping find a solution is a Good Thing,
  we want to avoid having people who do that feel ignored

-> this is one case where it is especially important to get some kind of
   reaction to the bug (Note: this does not necessarily meen speedy
   resolution of that patch and/or bug)

=> When this is not happening the package needs help badly

   Automatically orphaning such packages has problems as Russel pointed out,
   but a "needs co-maintainers"/"needs hijacking" list of packages where
   DD's can be more aggressive in jumping/taking over in seems a good idea
   IMO.
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)

Attachment: pgphGV704_wpC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: