From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: pretest, devel and bug lists Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 03:59:05 +0900 Message-ID: <87y75rehza.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <007201c8c038$e401e490$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <483C7BC7.3030700@gnu.org> <18493.52214.798172.380836@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18495.31229.262055.411087@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1212173263 22876 80.91.229.12 (30 May 2008 18:47:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 18:47:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rgm@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, jasonr@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com To: Nick Roberts Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 30 20:48:23 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K29eH-00046g-1j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 May 2008 20:48:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51566 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K29dV-0006j3-B2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 May 2008 14:47:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K29dR-0006hz-8I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 May 2008 14:47:29 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K29dQ-0006hh-Is for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 May 2008 14:47:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33134 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K29dQ-0006he-Bd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 May 2008 14:47:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:38523) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K29dA-00035t-Lg; Fri, 30 May 2008 14:47:13 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79F97FFA; Sat, 31 May 2008 03:46:56 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 392A31A25C3; Sat, 31 May 2008 03:59:05 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <18495.31229.262055.411087@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> X-Mailer: VM ?bug? under XEmacs 21.5.21 (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:98081 Archived-At: Nick Roberts writes: > Richard Stallman writes: > > I think that is a misunderstanding. There are two questions here! > > > > 1. Whether messages people send to bug-gnu-emacs should generate bug > > tracker entries. (And likewise for emacs-pretest-bug.) > > > > I said nothing about that, but I think that both lists should do so. > > > > 2. Whether the bug tracker should send mail to bug-gnu-emacs. > > > > That is the question I was talking about before. > > I think it should NOT send any mail to bug-gnu-emacs, or > > to emacs-pretest-bug. > > What does that mean? AFAICS, that means that the workflow continues to be organized around the lists, and that gateway to the bug tracker is used to ensure that issues get recorded for review. > The thread generated by a bug report is presumably a mixture of > technical discussion and admin related to the tracker. How does > someone following bug-gnu-emacs know that a bug report has been > closed if he only sees part of the thread. He looks at the bug tracker web interface, or joins the nosy list for the bug. (If that's possible, I know debbugs sends mail to the originator and to the maintainer, presumably there's a way to add yourself to the list of interested parties.) This is basically the model used by the Python developers, with the improvement that the tracker generates a weekly report containing a summary of activity (total issues, total open, new this week, active this week, closed this week, etc), a list of new issues with their titles, and list of closed issues with their titles. It sends this report to the mailing list. This minimizes the intrusion of administrative detail on the list, while making people aware of the tracker and its activity, and prompting developers to maintain the issues that they are responsible for. So your presumption is wrong, in that model: there is a thread of substantive discussion on the mailing list, and there is a thread of administration on the tracker. The tracker is also responsible for keeping important data such as test cases and proposed patches, which are relatively rarely sent to the list. > > Using emacs-pretest-bug for the bug tracker > > > > "Using" in this context confuses the two questions, > > since it fails to distinguish the two kinds of use. > > That's probably because I am confused. Well, there certainly are tracker-centric workflows. Emacs has never been one, though, and given all the changes that are happening now I find Richard's gradualist approach to introduction of the tracker to be both natural and plausible, even though it probably does postpone taking full advantage of important tracker features indefinitely.