From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ng0 Subject: Re: Tracking package submissions with Debbugs Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2016 16:57:01 +0000 Message-ID: <87oa43zjqa.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> References: <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> <20160903210030.GE4019@macbook42.flashner.co.il> <87bn041jch.fsf@gmail.com> <20160904070509.GA1724@solar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35213) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgajC-0000oK-7R for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:57:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgaj9-00051m-Tl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:57:05 -0400 Received: from mithlond.libertad.in-berlin.de ([2001:67c:1400:2490::1]:56137 helo=beleriand.n0.is) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgaj9-00051h-IY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:57:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160904070509.GA1724@solar> 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: Andreas Enge , Alex Vong Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andreas Enge writes: > Hello, > > using debbugs corresponds to a suggestion I made a while ago, so I am > obviously in favour of it... > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 10:37:02AM +0800, Alex Vong wrote: >> > I think it would make sense to have the one bug report for the "target >> > package" and then all the packages that get pulled in along the way get >> > tacked on also. >> Hmm, but what if we have 2 target packages (A, B) pulling the same >> package (C) in? Then it is not obvious if C should live in A's or B's >> bug report. What do you think? > > I do not quite understand the problem with relating bug reports to packages. > The discussion sounds as if we considered one constantly open bug report per > package, which is maybe a misunderstanding on my part. I would say that bug > reports should correspond roughly to our current discussion threads on > guix-devel: Someone sends in a patch or patch series, which opens a new bug > (there seems to be the problem of git-sendmail still); there are replies back > and forth; in the end the patch is applied (or, from time to time, retracted), > and the bug is closed. In this way, we have an overview of pending patches > and are less likely to forget one. > > As for the non-emacs users, I intend to work as before: Subscribe to all the > bugs and have them end up in my mailbox, reply, and potentially close them > by mail. > > Andreas > A constant open bug could be confusing and misleading. Is this really what they mean? My preference would be: User sends email with patch (or coverletter, wait for assignment*), patch gets assigned id, all correspondence regarding that bug is done in that thread, bug is considered/marked as done when the patch is merged. * which can be contra-productive as debbugs email to arrive at my side sometimes take 12 - 24 hours -- ng0 For non-prism friendly talk find me on http://www.psyced.org