Control: forwarded -1 93sam@debian.org Control: reassign -1 cdimage.debian.org Hi, Le 17/07/2012 12:56, techy techtech a écrit : > Package: www.debian.org > Severity: minor > > Subject: Suggestion: Four Weekly-Build, User writeable, > User-Feedback-Status fields, for the Debian web site. > > Regarding the the Debian page: > http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/ (For me, Testing > Wheezy i386 ) What I explicitly notice on that page, is Steve's email address, so forwarding accordingly. <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages> also inform me of the existence of the cdimage.debian.org pseudopackage, thus reassigning (I know it doesn't fit the description, but it has more chance to be properly addressed there…). Cheers David P.-S.: following the rest of the initial BR. > BENEFITS: > This is not a complaint, it is meant as a well intentioned observation > and suggestion, I believe it is a way to speed up the bug/fix cycle > with quick feedback and also increasing Debians available resources by > involving outside help, us Users. > > PROPOSITION: > It would be helpfull if the the Weekly Build Status page included > four, User changeable, User Feedback fields:- > > A first single field; with two dropdown selectable options for 'User > Feedback' flags, referencing the current Weekly Build feedback from > USERS, such as; "No known issues" or "Unknown", "Uninstallable", or > "Broken + Uninstalable". (A multiple choice, drop down selection.) > > A second field for a "Bug# number" to enable a visiting User to > quickly track the status, helping the User make their download > decision, quickly and efficiently, instead of taking the best part of > a day to find out its broken. > > A third field, of open text "Issue Description" field, for text like > "Weekly Build cut 20120702-03:50" for when there is no 'bug report > number' yet, because nobody is working on the issue. This gives an > instant indication and opportunity to a user, like me to download, > investigate and report the broken Weekly Build as a new bug. > These 'User Feedback Status' fields would go a long way to making life > easier to decide if its worth downloading, maybe cutting a disk, and > going through the install process before finding out the Weekly Build > is broken and will not boot. > > A fourth field that is automatically updated with the date of the User change. > > --- > CURRENT WEB PAGE: > http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/ > Currently the (URL above) page says: "Weekly build status Last > updated: 20th October 2011 > All running normally, no issues to report. ( I know that it has been > broken for for at least 3 to 4 weeks.) > Possible bugs affecting the weekly builds No bugs found Last bug > check: 2012-07-17 08:10:02 UTC" > (today is 17.07.2012) I assume this means, ...with the build disk > packaging, which is reasonable statement. > > EXPERIMENT: > One proposed suggestion may be to conduct a 6 month experiment by > creating and allowing on that page, a public access, "User Status > Feedback fields and Date" field, so that we users could help, by > updating the "Weekly Build (WB) Feedback Status". > Text could be added nearby with a disclaimer and warning that this > feedback is user changeable and may be wholly inaccurate. > If the experiment is not helpfull, or is abused, just tweak or fine > tune fields and text accordingly or stop the experiment. > > REASON FOR CHANGE: > I would not have downloaded for so many weeks, the first two DVD's and > cut the first DVD (no net), then spent the time trying to install each > time, a known (by someone) broken uninstalable WB (Weekly Build) iso. > > I could not see from previous bug searching, in advance, unless I had > the symptoms to search with from my many own fruitless installs and > resulting issues. > > I am guessing here of course, the Weekly Builds are auto built, which > I now suspect they are, I trust that this is already the process. It > appears there may be nobody trying to check to see if the Weekly Build > actually installs. > Maybe this has probably been a glitch, has occured to me, and probably > due to the lack of people resources. > If I am wrong, then I do appologise. > > Of course, holding back on publishing, or pulling the build is NOT an > option in my view. People need to work on something. That's why my > proposed 'WB USER Feedback Status Fields', to 'flag the WB iso' idea > of mine, may be of assistance in helping you decide the appropriate > measure, if any, to be taken here by (Debian) you. > > The detail reason for my comments are contained in one of my > installation-reports. In this case, regarding Weekly Build > 20120702-03:50 I have no bug# number to reference here yet, as I have > not submitted the 'Package: instalation-reports:' report yet, (work in > progress). > > HISTORY: > Bear in mind that recently, more Wheezy Testing Weekly Builds have > install bugs that have not allowed a succesfull install, for various > reasons. > I did try, but failed to install, using; The Debian-Installer Alpha 1, > and Testing Wheezy i386 Weekly Build's; > Dated; 20120611-04:04, 20120618-04:03, 20120702-03:50, 20120709-03:47. > Maybe, yes maybe due to bugs; #674100, #676302, #638682, 681267 respectively. > > To finish, I value everbody's work on Debian.org web site and am > overawed with, and gratefull to; GNU, Linux and Debian and the App > developers. I hope my above comments help, they are meant to. > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature