-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200 Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi fellow developers, > > > it seems I've run into a minor issue with fellow bug wrangler carlo > (who has been putting a lot of work into that, for which we should all > be grateful). > > Carsten has a cut-and-paste message that he posts in comments to > version bump bug reports that he finds have been filed on the day the > software version in question was released/announced. The gist of the > message is that none of or most ebuild developers do not like these > "0-day requests" and that users (and developers) should refrain from > filing them on the same day. Waiting a week would be OK, the message > seems to say. > > Being an ebuild developer myself, I have to say that I do not hold that > stance and that I welcome early version bump requests. Therefore, I > refrain from adding such messages to the bugs that I wrangle and indeed > welcome any bump requests[1]. > > Finding myself in conflict with someone I have come to share a certain > workload with, notably someone who has a few more years of Gentoo > experience, I wonder what the majority of our ebuild developers > actually think. In that spirit, I hope the following questions are > neutral enough for everyone to *not* start a flamewar over this. :) > > > ----- > 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request? > Speaking only for myself as an arch developer. It depends on the reason. For example, recently there was a day 0 request for a freetype (I believe) stable request because current stable didn't work is some such. That sort of thing is OK. Obviously security bugs require quick processing. New keyword/re-keyword requests are OK (but then of course we don't go stable). Otherwise, we will put the package into the normal cycle whenever it enters the tree. > > 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early > version bump requests? > > Makes no difference to me, but I am not a package maintainer. I am speaking from an arch point of view. We only ask that the package maintainer make sure it at least seems to work before they bump the version. (It's different when the new version is not compatible with the current version, but that's off topic for this thread, I think. I don't ever want to see that sort of thing.) > ----- > > I know, it's not a particularly good survey, but I hope the plenty and > diversity of your answers will shed more light on the matter. :) > > > Thank you and kind regards, > JeR > > > [1] In fact I regularly use the opportunity to check on the HOMEPAGE > whether the release was security related, and I assign directly to > security@ when that is the case (CC'ing the package's maintainers) and > perhaps pasting ChangeLog or advisory info in a comment. > -- > gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list > I doubt that this addresses what you are asking, but in case it is useful, Regards, Ferris - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkht270ACgkQQa6M3+I///edXwCfTPiTZ56Aw9ViJRs8hJTm8DrQ 7g4An1NdsU/hLteSFLmxT47eeWDEGehm =62NW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
