On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:40:42 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Okay, so what are you using the STABLEREQ keyword for that you want
> to set it when the bug is filed but before archs are added? If you
> want to see only stabilization bugs you can search in the Keywording
> and Stabilization component. Ca
On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:40:42 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Okay, so what are you using the STABLEREQ keyword for that you want
> to set it when the bug is filed but before archs are added?
The people that decided to change their way of using this keyword, did
so because setting it as early as possib
On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:58:26 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
> > > having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
> > > themselves. You should just do it your
On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:20:00 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Is a version bump an enhancement per se?
>
> Yes. Nothing is broken. There is no "bug" to fix.
No. Things can be broken. There are almost always bugs to fix.
New versions come with "bug" fixes too, users need these fixes.
> > If all ve
On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:00:46 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > > > Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
> > > > are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
> > > > (What is an enhanced seve
Jeroen Roovers posted on Wed, 22 May 2013 17:21:46 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:46:22 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> As a user, I've understood:
>>
>> * Severity is something the user/filer can use.
>
> So when Chromium doesn't compile on your machine, you
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> A newer version of a package is usually considered to be better in
> some way, hence it is an enhancement.
Unless it's a Blocker, of course. :)
> According to the bug-wrangler's own docs[1]: "A stabilisation request
> should be handl
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
The point I was making is we could improve things by a fair margin. If
all stabilisation bugs had a Severity that actually reflected the
severity, then I'd pay attention to it. Right now o
On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:46:22 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> As a user, I've understood:
>
> * Severity is something the user/filer can use.
So when Chromium doesn't compile on your machine, you set it as a
Blocker, and then it gets reverted to Normal because it works fine for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 10:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>>> And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation
>>> "no answer to stable bug in 30 days" => "package unmantained"
>>> ;-
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > Yet the base system lead went and apply it to any stabilization
> > bug; as both him and Jer (the bug wrangling lead) do it this way,
> > I'll be doing it as well. Let's not be inconsistent with our leads
> > unless there is a wide de
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation "no
> > answer to stable bug in 30 days" => "package unmantained" ;-)
> >
>
> This could actually work
Then we'd get the Ubuntu/Launchpad situation, where several
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 07:16 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 06:07 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau
On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
> are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
> (What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
> >>
> >>> Why are they enhanceme
On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Michael Palimaka schrieb:
>>> On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K
On 22/05/2013 21:00, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
(What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
Why are th
On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Th
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
> > > are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
> > > (What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
>
> > Why are they enhancements? The
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
> On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>> And if a
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, yo
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a res
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
th
On 22/05/2013 18:58, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
not to change the pr
> On Wed, 22 May 2013, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
>>
>> Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
> Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
>
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
>
> Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
not to change the priority and severity fields to make mor
On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:40:27 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > OS: Linux
> > Status: CONFIRMED
> > Severity: enhancement
>
> Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations are
> enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead? (Wha
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:17:30 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
> > I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
> > bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few* people
> > don't like it, I suggest you don'
Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 20 May 2013 13:15:09 -0400 as excerpted:
>> Severity and Priority on the Gentoo Bugzilla have always been weird to
>> me; I would love to hear from someone who is actually using either of
>> those to sort their bugs and using them happily, because the
>> inconsistency a
On 19/05/2013 23:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
OS: Linux
Status: CONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se?
Usually I think so yes. If it is an urgent stabilisation there is
priority field.
If all stabilisations are
enhance
30 matches
Mail list logo
