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

Re: Random BTS musings

On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 02:52:46AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

[Matt recommends Bugzilla-esque tags]

Some of these are already available:

> "Moreinfo/Unreproducible"
	tags: moreinfo, unreproducible
> "NotABug"
	state: done, severity: wishlist or tag: wontfix, depending
> "Wontfix"
	tag: wontfix
> "Fixed"
	tags: pending (currently undocumented tag, meaning "maintainer has the 
              fix, but hasn't uploaded), patch (if the fix is in the BTS)
> "Closed"
	state: done

> "New/Unconfirmed"
> "Verified"
> "Assigned"
> "Reviewed"

These sorts of states always strike me as not really appropriate for
Debian. I don't think anyone's even vaguely interested in having anything
even vaguely resembling formal reviews of patches and such. From what I've
seen, the QA team already has its hands full keeping orphaned packages in
order and helping out with RC bugs; expecting them to go through every
new flag and verify/review/confirm the report, or talk to the reporter
to get a real report just seems kinda unreasonable.

The only thing which people actually do atm which the BTS doesn't really
support is to help coordinate QA work on bugs (eg during bug squashing),
which could be fixed by a "tag" that lets you say something like:

	tag 123456 taken-by=ajt@debian.org

or so, with a meaning something like


	Non maintainer with email address <foo> has taken responsibility
	for finding a fix for this bug.

Resolutions could be:

	# I found a patch!
	tag 123456 + patch
	tag 123456 - taken-by

	# ajt@d.o didn't do anything useful, I'm taking over!
	tag 123456 taken-by=tbm@debian.org

	# I've NMUed
	tag 123456 + fixed

This doesn't really help with the original problem though.

> "Released"

Having to go through every bug fixed between potato and woody's release
and change a flag on it isn't likely to be at all fun. Even just keeping
the bugs open is really more than the BTS can cope with. Not that this
wouldn't be somewhat useful; just that it's a /lot/ of work, either in
the short term or over the long term.

> I would like to create a system where bug status could be tracked without
> having to read through the messages in the BTS.  Each time I scan through the
> RC bug list, or skim debian-bugs-dist, I have to read the messages for the bug
> to determine what is happening with it.  If we were to keep track of bug
> status, more effort could be focused on the bugs which need the most help.

There're "help", "moreinfo", "unreproducible" and "patch" tags. There are
three open bugs marked help [44065, 93885, 94298], 115 marked moreinfo,
124 marked unreproducible, and 405 marked patch, that haven't been NMU'ed
or closed yet.

I don't really think it's plausible to expect -qa to fix all those bugs,
so I don't really think adding a new tag (or equivalent) and expecting
-qa to look through all of these bugs is plausible either.

> Is any development effort still going into debbugs, or
> should a replacement be written?

debbugs CVS is on cvs.d.o in /cvs/debbugs, module "source".


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpgcXcTZaNDj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: