Re: NM's to fix bugs? (Was: Asking for an advocate (gURLChecker))
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 03:19:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 02:25:43AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > (Hint for the unaware: #166130, #166897, #167054. The fact that
> > pkgreport.cgi doesn't display them is a bug in debbugs, not
> > bugs.qa.debian.org.)
>
> So bugs.qa.debian.org has a different notion of what constitutes an RC
> bug in a package to everything else, including the testing
> code. That's not very useful. It's more effective to grep the bugscan
> output, so this script has failed at the first hurdle.
>
> Particularly since none of those three bugs are actually bugs in
> bison. And nobody ever reassigned them because they had no way to even
> *notice* them.
>
> The "the rest of the world is wrong and this is right" attitude is
> cute, but when everything else that matters disagrees[0], it's not very
> productive.
"On Usenet, you can be arrogant or wrong, but not both." Not that this
is Usenet, but it seems to apply well enough anyway ... Basically the
same group of people is responsible for all this stuff, so it's not a
matter of "you're wrong, I'm right".
pkgreport.cgi will be fixed reasonably soon (basically once I get a
chance to review and apply Teoh's patch and give aj the patch to his
bugscan script). Doing so will let the testing scripts pick up the bugs
without too much extra effort. I'm not going to waste my time kludging
bugs.qa.debian.org to produce wrong output in the meantime. I'd
forgotten about http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/; it only took a
few minutes to fix, and will display the bison bugs next time it updates
assuming that nobody reassigns them in the meantime.
Plus, I disagree with your implicit assertion that the fact that two
pieces of code don't notice an RC bug means that everything else should
bury its head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. It's better for
bugs to show up somewhere, even if it's confusing, than nowhere.
I've added a comment at the bottom of bugs.qa's output to explain the
strangeness for now.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: