From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Tracking package submissions with Debbugs Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 15:47:35 +0200 Message-ID: <877fatm6x4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <57B1AD4D.2080907@goebel-consult.de> <20160815153059.7c8201e6@scratchpost.org> <87h9am5aco.fsf@gmail.com> <57B2BEDA.2020202@goebel-consult.de> <874m6kbyg4.fsf@gmail.com> <57B5A049.6070206@goebel-consult.de> <87wpiwruyd.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <87inuf27h7.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <20160902002755.GA30382@jocasta.intra> <87vayfm821.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <8737liam03.fsf@gmail.com> <87fupimq6n.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87lgz9u8eq.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59042) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgBIS-0006Aa-O3 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 09:47:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgBIQ-0003ye-RN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 09:47:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87lgz9u8eq.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Vong's message of "Sat, 03 Sep 2016 08:35:57 +0800") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Alex Vong Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, ng0 Alex Vong skribis: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >> >>> I suppose it wouldn=E2=80=99t handle patch series very well though, wou= ld it? >>> Or people would have to send the =E2=80=9Ccover letter=E2=80=9D of the = series first, and >>> then send the rest to NNN@debbugs.gnu.org once a number has been >>> assigned? >> >> Or could we have a bug per module? Then the whole patch series could be >> sent to the bug id of the module. But I guess this would make it harder >> to keep track of individual package submissions again, because bug would >> rarely ever be closed when there are lots of patches to the same module. >> > Yes, I think it will make it harder to keep track of individual > package. Is there a way to configure git-sendmail to do what we want? > > Here is a related idea. If we were to send all packaging bug reports to > a single package (e.g. guix-package), then it will make it impossible to > browse from a web browser. The situation is similar to the slowness of > our Packages page[0]. So instead of having a bug per module, should we > have a package per module (e.g. guix-package-emacs, guix-package-maths, > guix-package-shells ...)? I think that wouldn=E2=80=99t scale, and would also prevent us to have a gl= obal view of all the pending submissions (not to mention that debbugs.gnu.org is administered by non-Guix people and they=E2=80=99d quickly be annoyed ;-= )). So, let=E2=80=99s ask for guix-package@gnu.org (or guix-patches@gnu.org?) to begin with? >>> What=E2=80=99s unclear to me is how convenient Debbugs is for non-Emacs= users: >>> Emacs has M-x debbugs-gnu, which is a significant UI improvement, but >>> how do non-Emacs users deal with Debbugs? >> >> Outside of Emacs I only ever used Debbugs in read-only fashion. The web >> interface is not very pretty but it=E2=80=99s functional and looks bette= r than >> the default mailman interface. >> > Yes, it is still email-based. The web interface is read-only, you can > search for bug reports in a package[1]. To reply to it, you send email > to . For non-emacs users, this means > they have to use email client to communicate and web browser to search / > read bugs. Yeah well, better than the Mailman interface. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.