[rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp? - Debian

This is a discussion on [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp? - Debian ; i noticed that there exist many ita/itp bugs that are much older than two month. would it make sense to set them back to rfa/rfp? if so how many days would be good to be the "too old" edge value? ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

  1. [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    i noticed that there exist many ita/itp bugs that are much older than
    two month. would it make sense to set them back to rfa/rfp?
    if so how many days would be good to be the "too old" edge value?

    click this to get a quick overview: :-D
    http://debian.binera.de/wnpp/?type%5...&sort=age;desc



    sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
    >> http://debian.binera.de/wnpp/?type%5...&sort=age;desc

    >
    > This web page is great. It would be good to also show the submitter of the
    > bug in a column.


    noted for todo.



    sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Luk Claes wrote:
    >> i noticed that there exist many ita/itp bugs that are much older than
    >> two month. would it make sense to set them back to rfa/rfp?
    >> if so how many days would be good to be the "too old" edge value?

    >
    > There is already a process that does that, though it takes into account
    > any follow-up on the bug report to reset the timer which you clearly
    > don't...


    good point. i'll come back with better data :-)



    sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
    > This web page is great. It would be good to also show the submitter of the
    > bug in a column.


    added.



    sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Luk Claes wrote:
    > There is already a process that does that, though it takes into account
    > any follow-up on the bug report to reset the timer which you clearly
    > don't...


    hm, if we have ITA/ITPs with more than 300 days of no activity than
    we need a fix here i guess :-)

    i added a "dust" column showing the number of days without activity.
    also the cron job updates existing entries finally.

    this query shows some very old ITA/ITP bugs:
    http://debian.binera.de/wnpp/?type%5...sort=dust;desc



    sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Sebastian Pipping wrote:

    > hm, if we have ITA/ITPs with more than 300 days of no activity than
    > we need a fix here i guess :-)
    >
    > i added a "dust" column showing the number of days without activity.
    > also the cron job updates existing entries finally.
    >
    > this query shows some very old ITA/ITP bugs:
    > http://debian.binera.de/wnpp/?type%5...sort=dust;desc


    Very interesting page. I tried to find out for ITPs I'm "guilty"
    for and found that I'm listed behind #186958. It is right that
    I originally issued the bug but as RFP. It was later on retitled to
    ITP by Thomas Huriaux and it was also merged with #389876.

    So I do not mind that I'm listed responsible for this bug but to
    make the page really effective it might be better to dive even more
    into the details of the bug history.

    Kind regards

    Andreas.

    --
    http://fam-tille.de


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  7. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Andreas Tille wrote:
    > Very interesting page. I tried to find out for ITPs I'm "guilty"
    > for and found that I'm listed behind #186958. It is right that
    > I originally issued the bug but as RFP. It was later on retitled to
    > ITP by Thomas Huriaux and it was also merged with #389876.


    actually that column is not the owner but the reporter so
    it's a special case with owner = report here. the reporter
    column was requested so i did that first. i plan to add the
    owner column later today.



    > So I do not mind that I'm listed responsible for this bug but to
    > make the page really effective it might be better to dive even more
    > into the details of the bug history.


    yes, it's a tool, people still should look at the real bug closely.



    sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  8. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Sebastian Pipping wrote:
    > [..] i plan to add the owner column later today.


    added, will take some time for the cron to feed
    in the data though.



    sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  9. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Andreas Tille wrote:
    > So I do not mind that I'm listed responsible for this bug but to
    > make the page really effective it might be better to dive even more
    > into the details of the bug history.


    Actually I misread this the first time. What exactly do you have in
    mind?



    Sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  10. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Sebastian Pipping wrote:

    > Andreas Tille wrote:
    >> So I do not mind that I'm listed responsible for this bug but to
    >> make the page really effective it might be better to dive even more
    >> into the details of the bug history.

    >
    > Actually I misread this the first time. What exactly do you have in
    > mind?


    No, I think you perfectly read the first time. You are listing the
    issuer of the bug in the last column, but the issuer is not necessarily
    the person that in fact is the person who Intents To Package. This is
    the person which retitled the bug. I think the page is fine as a first
    shot but it is not safe to blame the person who opened the bug for
    not doing some work on it because it might have been an RFP in the
    first place.

    Kind regards

    Andreas.

    --
    http://fam-tille.de


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  11. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Sebastian Pipping wrote:
    > this query shows some very old ITA/ITP bugs:
    > http://debian.binera.de/wnpp/?type%5...sort=dust;desc


    should i create a retitle command list from that?



    sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  12. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Sebastian Pipping wrote:

    > Sebastian Pipping wrote:
    >> this query shows some very old ITA/ITP bugs:
    >> http://debian.binera.de/wnpp/?type%5...sort=dust;desc

    >
    > should i create a retitle command list from that?


    Well, I have no idea whether BTS allows to detect this safely. Bug #186958
    was retitled to ITP by Thomas Huriaux looking
    at the history of this bug). But I guess you are perfectly right to
    mention the owner of the bug as MJ Ray who opened
    ITP #389876 and later on #186958 was merged. So the specific case I was
    wondering about seems to be correct now regarding the bug owner.

    A further enhancement would be to not list merged bugs because both bugs
    are mentioned on your page.

    Thanks for the nice QA work

    Andreas.

    --
    http://fam-tille.de


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  13. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Andreas Tille wrote:
    > A further enhancement would be to not list merged bugs because both bugs
    > are mentioned on your page.


    Right. I'm not sure about the best way yet. I think MySQL can
    help me with that but not sure yet how exactly.




    Sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  14. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    Andreas Tille wrote:
    > A further enhancement would be to not list merged bugs because both bugs
    > are mentioned on your page.


    fixed. a project with two bugs now is shown as

    project [1][2]

    instead of

    project
    project

    before.
    try this query to see it in action:

    http://wnpp.debian.net/?project=mozilla-firefox-nonfree



    sebastian


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  15. Re: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?

    On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 06:18:32PM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
    > i noticed that there exist many ita/itp bugs that are much older than
    > two month. would it make sense to set them back to rfa/rfp? if so how
    > many days would be good to be the "too old" edge value?


    I'd say more than two months. As a non-DD with no fixed sponsor, It can
    often take me >2 months to get a package sponsored, let alone prepared.

    (on that note, I've just stuck an RFP up on -mentors[1] for a nice pidgin
    plugin if anyone is interested )

    [1]


    --
    Jon Dowland


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread