[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: closing out old bugs of unmaintained releases

On Jan 8, 2008 2:53 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 20:06 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > > This seems a little reminiscent of the old school "go read the man page"
> > > response that helps and challenges some people, while turning off a
> > > greater number.  We can't grow a bigger, more vibrant community if we
> > > dis the people trying to get involved and help.
> >
> > +1!  Fedora has come a *very* long way respecting the community of
> > developers and packagers.  Now we need to get even better at welcoming a
> > broader community of users, not the least of which are those who take
> > the time to do that which we passionately implore of them -- "File a
> > bug! File a bug! File a bug!"
> I think there's more to it than that -- it's not just the PR angle. I
> think that if our packagers aren't willing and able to take an active
> rôle in ensuring the quality of the software we ship, we have a serious
> problem.
> I welcome the non-programmers who volunteer to package software, and
> their work is very valuable -- but it really isn't going to turn out
> well for Fedora if we prioritise quantity over quality to the extent
> that we end up shipping packages which we can't _properly_ maintain.
> The quote I posted earlier in this thread ("this is a bug in the
> software, not the packaging") is taken verbatim from bugzilla, and I
> find it extremely shocking. We have to do better than this, really.
> Either that or go back to having a clear 'second class' repository
> again, which I don't think we really want.
> Perhaps one option would be for non-programmer packagers to team up with
> a programmer/sponsor to take on the task of package maintenance? Where
> currently a package has one 'owner', there would instead be two rôles --
> a 'packager' and potentially a separate 'hacker'. Those wanting to
> package software which they can't fully maintain for themselves would
> have to recruit a programmer-type to sign up for the job with them.
> I would certainly welcome being part of such a partnership -- I lack the
> wit and the attention to detail for actually packaging software, and I
> would like someone clever to do that bit, leaving me with the
> monkey-work of poking at the damn thing in gdb when it's _really_
> misbehaving, which I happen to find enjoyable and which my deranged
> brain can actually handle.
> --

I think that this would be a useful item.. there are probably only 1
experienced programmer to every 10-20 packagers out there. Getting
some mentorship and help would be a useful 2 way street. I think that
it might be good to look at package teams. Say a package has 1-2
'lead-programmers', 2-3 packagers with some sort of schedule for whose
turn it is in the barrel. This would allow for more peer programming
and more train the trainer items so that the next generation of
programmers can take over in 2-3 years when Dr Woodhouse has finally
built his secret base on the moon and retires there with his retinue
of Fembots.

Again growing pains as we figure out how to make software work for our

Also.. here is what I would like to say for triaging bugs: Lets put
together a pool of money for triage work and put a contest together
not for the most closed bugs, but the most tested to see if the
problem is still around in FC9-alpha-alpha-1.

Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]