pkg kde talk - May 2009 - Adding presubj files for all KDE packages

Hi again!

As most bugs in our bts are upstream bugs and we do not have the resources
to forward them properly I suggest the following:

We install presubj files for KDE packages which encourage the users to
report bugs at bugs.kde.org, telling them that their chances to see the
bug fixed are much much higher compared to reporting the bug in our bts.
Note: I do not propose the forbid the users to report upstream bugs, I
just want to encourage them.
Apart from that Pino proposed to add a link to [0] and mention the name to
the respective -dbg package.
Modestas proposed to link the presubj scripts to on shipped by kdelibs.
Maybe we could do this: kdelibs ships a presubj.in and all source packages
replace something like ${SOURCE-PACKAGE}-dbg with their respective names
and install the presubj file for all binary packages. This way all the
packages would contain the name of the correct -dbg package.

What do you think?
Am I insane?

Greetings,
Armin

[0]
http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/Debugging/How_to_create_useful_crash_reports

On Mar 19 May 2009 15:41:25 trigger at space-based.de
escribi?:
> Hi again!
>
> As most bugs in our bts are upstream bugs and we do not have the resources
> to forward them properly I suggest the following:
>
> We install presubj files for KDE packages which encourage the users to
> report bugs at bugs.kde.org, telling them that their chances to see the
> bug fixed are much much higher compared to reporting the bug in our bts.
> Note: I do not propose the forbid the users to report upstream bugs, I
> just want to encourage them.
> Apart from that Pino proposed to add a link to [0] and mention the name to
> the respective -dbg package.
> Modestas proposed to link the presubj scripts to on shipped by kdelibs.
> Maybe we could do this: kdelibs ships a presubj.in and all source packages
> replace something like ${SOURCE-PACKAGE}-dbg with their respective names
> and install the presubj file for all binary packages. This way all the
> packages would contain the name of the correct -dbg package.
>
> What do you think?
> Am I insane?
>
> Greetings,
> Armin
I can''t say if the metodology of how to achieve this is correct, but
the idea
is excellent. I have seen it in another packages before (twinkle I guess), and 
I really like it.

Regards, Lisandro.


-- 
Lo que me sorprende de las mujeres es que se arrancan los pelos desde
la ra?z con cera caliente y a?n as? le temen a las ara?as.
  Jerry Seinfeld

lis: comentario sobre tu frase....
yo soy mujer, yo me arranco los pelos y VOS le tenes miedo a las ara?as....
  Mar?a Luj?n P?rez Meyer (mi hermana)

Lisandro Dami?n Nicanor P?rez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20090519/dc26ff61/attachment.pgp>

On Tue, 19 May 09 20:41, trigger at space-based.de
wrote:
> What do you think?
So, no feedback here so far, we are really more IRC than mailinglist
users.
What I understand so far is, that installing presubj files for all
packages is not an option, because e.g. people get used to simply ignore
the presubj messages.
The question is, if presubj files should be installed for packages which
create a lot of reports like Konqueror, Kmail, Akreator, Plasma...

These days people started to tag all upstream bugs as those and reply
with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we
officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have
no "Bugsqad") and tell people immediately to take this upstream? 
I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g.
on d-d at l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in fact it
is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever.

So, can we agree on something official?
The "default template"-solution has my vote FWIW...

Greetings,
Armin

On Lun 25 May 2009 23:44:25 Armin Berres escribi?:
> On Tue, 19 May 09 20:41, trigger at space-based.de wrote:
> > What do you think?
>
> So, no feedback here so far, we are really more IRC than mailinglist
> users.
> What I understand so far is, that installing presubj files for all
> packages is not an option, because e.g. people get used to simply ignore
> the presubj messages.
> The question is, if presubj files should be installed for packages which
> create a lot of reports like Konqueror, Kmail, Akreator, Plasma...
>
> These days people started to tag all upstream bugs as those and reply
> with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we
> officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have
> no "Bugsqad") and tell people immediately to take this upstream?
> I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g.
> on d-d at l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in fact it
> is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever.
>
> So, can we agree on something official?
> The "default template"-solution has my vote FWIW...
From my humble and inexperienced POV, it''s better to tell the users
that they
_can_ forward the bug upstream than let their bug be forgotten in our BT. 

In my case, as a "junior" job, I am trying to take care mainly of
Kopete bugs
(not package related, but I hope that will change someday). I will read them 
from time to time and forward those that need to, but if the user him/herself 
has done that, the better. I think in this way we gain from at least two 
sides: the users can learn, understand and become more useful in the software 
life span and we can focus in Debian''s bugs. Or packaging new versions
:-)

So, it may be rude in the begging, but more useful in the end... and my vote 
goes to make it official.

Regards, Lisandro.


-- 
?If you want to finish university, you should take care about getting on
with the teachers. The result are submissive citizens that won?t face
authority even if they know they?re right, in order to avoid problems?
  Miriam Ruiz, http://www.miriamruiz.es/weblog/?p=187

Lisandro Dami?n Nicanor P?rez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20090526/178fe281/attachment.pgp>

Hello,

On 2009 m. May 26 d., Tuesday 05:44:25 Armin Berres
wrote:
> with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we
> officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have
> no "Bugsqad") and tell people immediately to take this upstream?
> I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g.
> on d-d at l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in fact it
> is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever.
Who thinks it is rude, (s)he can join our team and do a better job (but they 
won''t). The main difference is that KDE is not a small package and most
vocal
developers on d-d at l.d.o have no idea what it is like to maintain a huge pile 
of software which you hardly use 1/3rd yourself (I base my opinion on 
discussion about copyright files). It is either:

1) let user know what is typically going to happen with his/her bug (i.e. 
nothing). If we continue with tagging ''upstream'', we do a
pretty good job
separating wasted bugs from useful ones and it is already an improvement.
2) forget/ignore bugs like we did before. BTS continues to become useless.

IMHO, 1st is a better option. As for presubj, we only have a handful of people 
reporting upstream bugs to Debian BTS. Once they all get a template reply at 
least once, it is high probability they won''t report such bugs again
(or think
good about it before reporting). So eventually such presubj''s
won''t be needed.

-- 
Modestas Vainius <geromanas at mailas.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20090526/861564aa/attachment.pgp>

On Tue, 26 May 09 10:00, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 2009 m. May 26 d., Tuesday 05:44:25 Armin Berres wrote:
> > with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we
> > officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have
> > no "Bugsqad") and tell people immediately to take this
upstream?
> > I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g.
> > on d-d at l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in
fact it
> > is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever.
> Who thinks it is rude, (s)he can join our team and do a better job (but
they
> won''t). The main difference is that KDE is not a small package and
most vocal
> developers on d-d at l.d.o have no idea what it is like to maintain a huge
pile
> of software which you hardly use 1/3rd yourself (I base my opinion on 
> discussion about copyright files). It is either:
> 
> 1) let user know what is typically going to happen with his/her bug (i.e. 
> nothing). If we continue with tagging ''upstream'', we do a
pretty good job
> separating wasted bugs from useful ones and it is already an improvement.
> 2) forget/ignore bugs like we did before. BTS continues to become useless.
> 
> IMHO, 1st is a better option. As for presubj, we only have a handful of
people
> reporting upstream bugs to Debian BTS. Once they all get a template reply
at
> least once, it is high probability they won''t report such bugs
again (or think
> good about it before reporting). So eventually such presubj''s
won''t be needed.
In case anything wonders what the status is:
We started to tag (mostly) all incoming upstream bugs as those and were begging
the submitter to resubmit upstream.
Some of the bugs have been resubmitted upstream, so this can be
considered to be a success. No one really complained and when there were
complaints people understood our position after a further explanation.

Greetings,
Armin