Attachment 'bugsquad-meeting-log-2009-08-03.txt'

Download

   1 Aug 03 20:00:21 <torkiano>	Hello all, seems that It's the time for the meeting, Are we all?
   2 Aug 03 20:01:04 <fizz>	we'll never know... ;-)
   3 Aug 03 20:01:10 <torkiano>	:)
   4 Aug 03 20:01:20 <lakhil>	hey torkiano 
   5 Aug 03 20:01:29 <fabio>	hi
   6 Aug 03 20:03:39 <torkiano>	Hello all, I'm Javier Jardón and seems that http://www.doodle.com doesn't work, murphy law :)
   7 Aug 03 20:05:45 <fabio>	hi torkiano 
   8 Aug 03 20:07:45 <torkiano>	Have you read the (trial) points of the day? http://live.gnome.org/JavierJardon/Bugsquad
   9 Aug 03 20:08:09 <hggdh>	yes
  10 Aug 03 20:09:21 <lakhil>	yep 
  11 Aug 03 20:10:38 <torkiano>	great, I hope we can reach a consensus today on most of the points :)
  12 Aug 03 20:11:57 *	mkanat is here too if you have any questions about Bugzilla in general or how the upgraded Bugzilla will be.
  13 Aug 03 20:12:12 <mkanat>	(I'm always here, it just happens to work out.)
  14 Aug 03 20:14:30 <lakhil>	torkiano: may be we can follow your link and can discuss point by point so that we don't miss any point 
  15 Aug 03 20:15:56 <torkiano>	lakhil, yes, you are rigth. I'd like to wait for the rest of the people, but What is the average waiting time? (Sorry, It's my first bugsquad meeting)
  16 Aug 03 20:17:22 <lakhil>	I am also attending bug squad meeting first time, in other irc meetings , we don't wait more than 10 minutes 
  17 Aug 03 20:17:54 <torkiano>	ok, let's start then
  18 Aug 03 20:17:58 <torkiano>	So, first point: Old untouched bugs
  19 Aug 03 20:18:08 <torkiano>	there are a lot of old bug in gnome bugzilla
  20 Aug 03 20:18:26 <torkiano>	How we can clean the bugzilla database?
  21 Aug 03 20:18:57 <torkiano>	as you can see in http://live.gnome.org/JavierJardon/Bugsquad, I think that we should define what is a old untouched bug
  22 Aug 03 20:19:03 <torkiano>	first
  23 Aug 03 20:20:01 *	Susana (~Susana@bl6-1-124.dsl.telepac.pt) has joined #bugs
  24 Aug 03 20:20:16 <torkiano>	I've suggested 6 months, 1 year and 2 year, what do you think?
  25 Aug 03 20:20:32 *	perror has left (Bye all !)
  26 Aug 03 20:20:35 <mkanat>	How many bugs would each of those include?
  27 Aug 03 20:20:35 *	lakhil would vote - bugs which are untouched with  more than a year 
  28 Aug 03 20:20:43 *	mkanat could tell you that really quick.
  29 Aug 03 20:20:51 *	mkanat has direct database access, will check.
  30 Aug 03 20:20:57 <torkiano>	mkanat, great
  31 Aug 03 20:21:07 <lakhil>	that will be great 
  32 Aug 03 20:22:20 <torkiano>	you can start thinking in what can will do with that bugs (second point)
  33 Aug 03 20:22:39 <mkanat>	I imagine you only want open bugs. :-)
  34 Aug 03 20:22:47 <andre>	oops, sorry, i'm late
  35 Aug 03 20:22:51 *	andre back
  36 Aug 03 20:22:59 <andre>	one vote i'd prefer
  37 Aug 03 20:23:03 <andre>	ear one year
  38 Aug 03 20:23:06 <lakhil>	ahoj andre
  39 Aug 03 20:23:09 <torkiano>	hello andre
  40 Aug 03 20:23:18 <mkanat>	6 months: 35384 bugs
  41 Aug 03 20:23:28 <mkanat>	Oh wait.
  42 Aug 03 20:23:30 <mkanat>	No, I'm doing this wrong.
  43 Aug 03 20:23:54 *	lajjr (~lajjr@pool-71-181-245-145.sctnpa.east.verizon.net) has joined #bugs
  44 Aug 03 20:24:13 <mkanat>	6 months: 14,088 bugs
  45 Aug 03 20:24:18 <mkanat>	1 year: 23115 bugs
  46 Aug 03 20:24:22 <mkanat>	2 years: 33227 bugs
  47 Aug 03 20:24:31 <mkanat>	Wait no, that's not right either.
  48 Aug 03 20:24:33 *	mkanat is really tired. :-)
  49 Aug 03 20:24:46 <mkanat>	Wait no, that is right.
  50 Aug 03 20:26:11 <hggdh>	heh
  51 Aug 03 20:26:36 <hggdh>	well, let's look at it from another angle: after one year, the bug is already two Gnome releases back-leveled
  52 Aug 03 20:27:15 <mkanat>	Although if it's an enhancement filed by a developer, it's probably still valid.
  53 Aug 03 20:27:22 <DrBob>	We can't close all those bugs indiscriminately, as there are plenty of feature requests which haven't been touched for years, but are still perfectly valid
  54 Aug 03 20:27:22 <DrBob>	I'd vote for closing all the crasher bugs (perhaps all those marked as "critical") which haven't been touched for x year(s), but nothing more invasive than that
  55 Aug 03 20:27:58 <andre>	i agree with DrBob. enhancement requests are different here from "real" bug reports
  56 Aug 03 20:28:05 <Susana>	hi gang
  57 Aug 03 20:28:11 <andre>	heja Susana
  58 Aug 03 20:28:11 <Susana>	+1 to DrBob 
  59 Aug 03 20:28:13 <torkiano>	yeah, I think enhacement bugs are out of this discussion
  60 Aug 03 20:28:45 <DrBob>	And thus closing old bugs automatically is also out of the discussion (if it was ever in; I don't know)
  61 Aug 03 20:28:59 <andre>	yes. i'm against automatical.
  62 Aug 03 20:29:00 <mkanat>	That still leaves you with a lot of open old bugs: 1 year has 16045, 2 years has 22014.
  63 Aug 03 20:29:42 <andre>	another issue with "one year":
  64 Aug 03 20:29:46 <andre>	note that one year should be okay for modules that are part of gnome
  65 Aug 03 20:30:05 <andre>	but some modules in gnome bugzilla have very long release cycles
  66 Aug 03 20:30:38 <DrBob>	andre: How long is "very"?
  67 Aug 03 20:30:47 <DrBob>	As long as a piece of string? :)
  68 Aug 03 20:30:57 <mkanat>	Oh wait, no, I think I did do those numbers wrongly.
  69 Aug 03 20:31:25 <mkanat>	Yeah, I did.
  70 Aug 03 20:31:40 <hggdh>	no matter what, I think there is consensus in that closing old bugs will be  a manual process
  71 Aug 03 20:31:50 <andre>	it can be helpful to look at the FTP server for the release date when cleaning up a specific module that is NOT official part of GNOME.
  72 Aug 03 20:32:06 <andre>	i must admit that i cleaned up gnome-commander a few days back
  73 Aug 03 20:32:06 <DrBob>	Not necesarily: I think we could get away with automatically closing critical bugs which haven't been touched in x year(s)
  74 Aug 03 20:32:07 <mkanat>	Here's a breakdown of bugs that haven't been touched in one year, by severity: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/665509
  75 Aug 03 20:32:29 <andre>	i used the following comment for that: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477506#c1
  76 Aug 03 20:32:30 <bugbot>	Bug 477506: critical, High, 1.2.5, epiotr@use.pl, RESOLVED OBSOLETE, crash in GNOME Commander:
  77 Aug 03 20:32:31 <torkiano>	DrBob, +1
  78 Aug 03 20:32:45 *	lajjr_ (~lajjr@pool-71-181-245-145.sctnpa.east.verizon.net) has joined #bugs
  79 Aug 03 20:32:46 <andre>	though i nowadays vote for setting them to NEEDINFO first and not directly closing :)
  80 Aug 03 20:32:47 *	lajjr has left (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  81 Aug 03 20:32:48 <DrBob>	We shouldn't close blockers, but perhaps bump them (automatically or manually would work)
  82 Aug 03 20:33:05 *	lajjr_ is now known as lajjr
  83 Aug 03 20:33:19 <DrBob>	Why on earth we have blockers which haven't been touched for a year is confusing
  84 Aug 03 20:33:39 <mkanat>	DrBob: I'll get you the bug numbers.
  85 Aug 03 20:34:57 <mkanat>	Or I'll just generate a search. Heck.
  86 Aug 03 20:35:00 <andre>	DrBob, e.g. because sometimes users file them as blockers ("doesn't work for me so it must have highest importance) and some developers don't care about correcting this field
  87 Aug 03 20:35:11 <mkanat>	andre: Yeah, that seems to be the case with most of these.
  88 Aug 03 20:35:23 <DrBob>	Silly developers
  89 Aug 03 20:35:28 <andre>	that's not too generalize of course. i know developers that are very picky about the sev/pri fields in b.g.o
  90 Aug 03 20:37:31 *	alexg has left (Abandonando)
  91 Aug 03 20:37:41 <andre>	so i think we agree on one year for crasher/blocker reports and manual checking?
  92 Aug 03 20:37:48 <andre>	what about untouched non-crasher non-enhancement bugs?
  93 Aug 03 20:38:04 <fizz>	DrBob: they're eavesdropping...
  94 Aug 03 20:38:28 <lakhil>	andre: I am not sure closing them blindly will be fair 
  95 Aug 03 20:38:37 <torkiano>	andre, I vote for close them too (or set needinfo)
  96 Aug 03 20:38:57 <DrBob>	+1 for needinfo
  97 Aug 03 20:39:11 *	lakhil prefers to move them to needinfo, wait for reporter’s reply within given time period and then close the bug   
  98 Aug 03 20:39:18 <torkiano>	lot of people forgot the bug report, and they can reopen the bug if they want
  99 Aug 03 20:39:18 <andre>	i'm also definitely against blindly.
 100 Aug 03 20:39:22 <andre>	+1 for lakhil :)
 101 Aug 03 20:40:05 <lajjr>	+1 for lakhil 
 102 Aug 03 20:40:42 <torkiano>	so bugs (not enhacement) > 1 year -> Let reporter to try a new version and set NEEDINFO ?
 103 Aug 03 20:41:04 <DrBob>	*not enhancement and not critical/blocker
 104 Aug 03 20:41:21 <hggdh>	yes. THEN what? close in?
 105 Aug 03 20:41:29 <fizz>	critical are often the automatic crash reports, though
 106 Aug 03 20:41:34 <fizz>	those should go, too
 107 Aug 03 20:41:50 <hggdh>	one day/week/month/quarter/semester/year?
 108 Aug 03 20:42:12 <lakhil>	not to forget to mention in which stable version user should try and report back 
 109 Aug 03 20:42:49 <andre>	set needinfo and close after 3 months as OBSOLETE in this case sounds save to me. maybe one month is fine too, but i feel better with 3 months
 110 Aug 03 20:43:07 <andre>	yes, we need a *good* stock answer for this
 111 Aug 03 20:43:56 <lajjr>	+1 for 3 months.
 112 Aug 03 20:44:04 <torkiano>	andre, I like your answer in bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477506#c1
 113 Aug 03 20:44:05 <bugbot>	Bug 477506: critical, High, 1.2.5, epiotr@use.pl, RESOLVED OBSOLETE, crash in GNOME Commander:
 114 Aug 03 20:44:09 <andre>	yes, basically i prefer to have the last sentence to be sth like "Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed for your version." because
 115 Aug 03 20:44:19 <andre>	somebody took his/her volunteer time to report an issue
 116 Aug 03 20:44:29 <andre>	and "we" (gnome) didn't really care
 117 Aug 03 20:44:34 <andre>	that happens and is reality.
 118 Aug 03 20:44:53 <andre>	but can be disappointing to a reporter not used to open source :)
 119 Aug 03 20:47:20 <torkiano>	I think the time should be the same for all NEEDINFO bugs (next point)
 120 Aug 03 20:47:41 <DrBob>	+1 for torkiano
 121 Aug 03 20:48:03 <torkiano>	Ubuntu, for exmaple, waits 6 weeks
 122 Aug 03 20:48:13 <andre>	hmm. i agree
 123 Aug 03 20:48:37 <lajjr>	+1 for 6weeks.
 124 Aug 03 20:48:48 *	muelli (~muelli@78-59-18-15.static.zebra.lt) has joined #bugs
 125 Aug 03 20:49:02 <muelli>	ahoi
 126 Aug 03 20:49:04 <lakhil>	 4 to 6 weeks is good enough time period to wait for reporter’s response   
 127 Aug 03 20:49:22 <DrBob>	Agreed
 128 Aug 03 20:49:43 <muelli>	sorry for being late. /me is still in holidays... :)
 129 Aug 03 20:49:58 <lakhil>	muelli: ahoj :)
 130 Aug 03 20:50:01 <hggdh>	OK. can someone please summarise that?
 131 Aug 03 20:50:35 <torkiano>	so bugs (not enhacement and not critical) > 1 year -> Let reporter to try a new version and set NEEDINFO -> 6 weeks -> close as INCOMPLETE?
 132 Aug 03 20:50:57 <fizz>	I think criticals should be in there, too
 133 Aug 03 20:51:03 <DrBob>	Yes, plus automatically close criticals
 134 Aug 03 20:51:04 <andre>	yeah, what's with blockers?
 135 Aug 03 20:51:12 <andre>	errrrr  crashers
 136 Aug 03 20:51:27 <torkiano>	DrBob, +1
 137 Aug 03 20:52:16 <andre>	i'd include crashers here.
 138 Aug 03 20:52:31 <fizz>	yes
 139 Aug 03 20:52:51 <torkiano>	crashers == criticals , isn't it?
 140 Aug 03 20:53:02 <DrBob>	For all intents and purposes, yes
 141 Aug 03 20:53:02 <fizz>	most of the time
 142 Aug 03 20:53:03 <andre>	in 90% of the cases, yes
 143 Aug 03 20:53:19 <andre>	so we use "INCOMPLETE" here after NEEDINFO (sounds good) and we leave the "OBSOLETE" resolution for bugs *newly filed* against *ancient* versions? great :)
 144 Aug 03 20:53:28 <DrBob>	Yup
 145 Aug 03 20:53:37 <torkiano>	andre, yes
 146 Aug 03 20:54:45 <torkiano>	so will we close critical bugs automatically after 1 year? Are we agree?
 147 Aug 03 20:55:33 <torkiano>	(untouched critical bugs, I mean)
 148 Aug 03 20:55:53 <DrBob>	+1 from me
 149 Aug 03 20:56:17 <fizz>	shouldn't they also be set to NEEDINFO first?
 150 Aug 03 20:56:51 <fizz>	after all, if people can still reproduce the crash it's still valid
 151 Aug 03 20:56:54 *	muelli nods
 152 Aug 03 20:56:56 <lakhil>	fizz: +1,  after following NEEDINFO -> 6 weeks process 
 153 Aug 03 20:57:14 <andre>	yes. all the same. +1
 154 Aug 03 20:57:29 <Susana>	sounds good
 155 Aug 03 20:57:31 *	rego (~rego@104.Red-83-37-184.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net) has joined #bugs
 156 Aug 03 20:57:41 *	fer (~fer@73.Red-81-32-106.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net) has joined #bugs
 157 Aug 03 20:57:43 <torkiano>	fizz, +1, I think the more generic are the rules, the better
 158 Aug 03 20:57:50 <andre>	cool. complete agreement. :)
 159 Aug 03 20:59:16 <fizz>	also keep in mind that not all enhancements are correctly flagged as such...
 160 Aug 03 20:59:16 <muelli>	Sorry for asking, but do we have an agenda we're working on?
 161 Aug 03 20:59:38 <torkiano>	muelli, http://live.gnome.org/JavierJardon/Bugsquad ?
 162 Aug 03 20:59:56 <fizz>	I frequently see them come in as minor, for example
 163 Aug 03 21:00:43 <torkiano>	we need a stock response for old untouched bugs, or maybe we can use this: http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/TriageGuide/StockResponses#head-365a0993c0ba2386a8f779d05389bd1de3fefd0c
 164 Aug 03 21:00:45 <andre>	yes, reporters often think that their issue is a bug. but the line is never clear
 165 Aug 03 21:01:10 <andre>	torkiano, that one is only for *newly* reported bugs about old versions
 166 Aug 03 21:01:43 <torkiano>	mmm, I meant, we can adapt that stock response
 167 Aug 03 21:03:49 <andre>	right, let me come up with something...
 168 Aug 03 21:04:27 <torkiano>	great, Can we go to the next point : use of NEW status?
 169 Aug 03 21:05:10 <andre>	"This bug was reported against a GNOME version that is now not supported anymore. GNOME developers are no longer working on that version, so unfortunately there will not be any bug fixes for the version that you use. By upgrading to a newer version of GNOME you could receive bug fixes and new functionality. You may need to upgrade your Linux distribution to obtain a newer version of GNOME.
 170 Aug 03 21:05:10 <andre>	Please check if the problem you reported here still occurs with a recent version of GNOME by reporting back which exact version you tested against"
 171 Aug 03 21:05:16 <andre>	^^ maybe?
 172 Aug 03 21:05:46 <torkiano>	andre, I like it
 173 Aug 03 21:05:55 <andre>	ah wait
 174 Aug 03 21:05:57 <andre>	"Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed for your version."
 175 Aug 03 21:06:01 <andre>	plus that one at the end.
 176 Aug 03 21:06:05 <hggdh>	yes
 177 Aug 03 21:06:07 <andre>	...other comments?
 178 Aug 03 21:06:08 <fizz>	I guess you should also mention that it will be closed after 6 weeks if there's no response
 179 Aug 03 21:06:19 <torkiano>	fizz, +1
 180 Aug 03 21:06:24 <andre>	fizz, +1
 181 Aug 03 21:06:29 <andre>	(that's what fedora also does)
 182 Aug 03 21:06:33 <lajjr>	yes +1 very good.
 183 Aug 03 21:06:58 <hggdh>	(and that's what we should do on Ubuntu...)
 184 Aug 03 21:07:20 <andre>	"Without feedback by the reporter this report will be closed as INCOMPLETE in 6 weeks." ?
 185 Aug 03 21:07:32 <lajjr>	+1 hggdh .
 186 Aug 03 21:07:40 <fizz>	not necessarily by the reporter, I'd say
 187 Aug 03 21:07:57 <andre>	right
 188 Aug 03 21:08:01 <lajjr>	6 weeks seems like a good deadline.
 189 Aug 03 21:08:04 <andre>	"Without feedback this report will be closed as INCOMPLETE in 6 weeks." ?
 190 Aug 03 21:08:27 <fizz>	ack
 191 Aug 03 21:08:33 <hggdh>	andre, +1 (and you beat me to the retype ;-)
 192 Aug 03 21:08:43 <torkiano>	andre, +1
 193 Aug 03 21:08:45 <lakhil>	+!
 194 Aug 03 21:08:47 <Susana>	+1
 195 Aug 03 21:08:53 <lakhil>	+1 :)
 196 Aug 03 21:08:55 <lajjr>	by doing just that in 6 week the bugs will be cut in half.
 197 Aug 03 21:08:57 <fabio>	+1
 198 Aug 03 21:09:22 <hggdh>	lajjr, yes, but frankly, after one year, it is time
 199 Aug 03 21:09:47 <lajjr>	yes 
 200 Aug 03 21:10:05 <torkiano>	and when we close bugs as INCOMPLETE, we tall reporter that he can reopen the bug if he want
 201 Aug 03 21:10:40 <torkiano>	http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/TriageGuide/StockResponses#head-dbbf91a496f5f6460a459159b976fa72a454a7a0
 202 Aug 03 21:11:15 <lajjr>	Yes reopen if he has info to add or a way to reproduce it.
 203 Aug 03 21:12:23 <hggdh>	on a newer version...
 204 Aug 03 21:14:12 <torkiano>	ok,  Can we go to the next point : use of NEW status ?
 205 Aug 03 21:14:51 <muelli>	What's the point with it, torkiano?
 206 Aug 03 21:15:17 *	Susana_ (~Susana@bl6-17-76.dsl.telepac.pt) has joined #bugs
 207 Aug 03 21:16:23 <torkiano>	muelli, well if we really use that status, what it mean? CONFIRMED or TRIAGED ?
 208 Aug 03 21:16:48 <andre>	what is the difference between those both?
 209 Aug 03 21:17:04 <DrBob>	I consider it something the developers should set, to signal that they've noted a bug and agree that it *is* a bug
 210 Aug 03 21:17:06 <muelli>	CONFIRMED, of course :) there's this page I can't find anymore. "What do all these fields mean anyway?" and it writes, basically, that NEW is a confirmed bug.
 211 Aug 03 21:17:29 <andre>	http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=bug-status.html#status ?
 212 Aug 03 21:17:42 <torkiano>	muelli, we can change that ;)
 213 Aug 03 21:17:42 <muelli>	well andre. The difference is, that you, as a triager, don't want to see triaged bugs in your search list.
 214 Aug 03 21:18:03 <muelli>	sure torkiano. But I don't know why we should do that :) Do you see any problem?
 215 Aug 03 21:18:09 <muelli>	yep andre. thanks.
 216 Aug 03 21:18:27 <torkiano>	TRIAGED means that is a bug with all the info needed for  a developer  can fix it
 217 Aug 03 21:18:30 <muelli>	Yep. A bug is NEW if it can be picked up by a bored developer of volunteer.
 218 Aug 03 21:19:41 *	Drom (~Dromatko@213.191.119.2) has joined #bugs
 219 Aug 03 21:19:46 <hggdh>	torkiano, there is no official distinction between confirmed and triaged on b.g.o. 
 220 Aug 03 21:19:47 <muelli>	I wouldn't necessarily say so, torkiano. If everything is "ready to fix", it should be new. Basically, a bug should not be in UNCONFIRMED anyway.
 221 Aug 03 21:20:22 <muelli>	But that's in utopia because we were too lazy in the past... ;-)
 222 Aug 03 21:20:31 <lakhil>	not sure if confirmed or new resolution makes any difference in attracting a developer   
 223 Aug 03 21:20:54 <lajjr>	if confirmed it is reproducible. Triaged is when someone picks it up to work on it. Is a good way to look at it.
 224 Aug 03 21:21:08 <lakhil>	if a developer changes the state , it makes more sense 
 225 Aug 03 21:21:09 <hggdh>	I would say current usage here is that NEW is prime territory for fixers
 226 Aug 03 21:21:27 <muelli>	I mean, the only problem I see with not having a TRIAGED state is, that you might get triaged bugs in your result list if you're looking for something to do. But I don't see it as a big enough problem to take care of that. Does anybody disagree? Are there other problems I don't see atm?
 227 Aug 03 21:21:36 <torkiano>	hggdh, muelli we can make that distinction, so developers know that these bug has more info and has been reviewed for the bugsquad team
 228 Aug 03 21:22:00 <torkiano>	(a bug with the NEW status, I mean)
 229 Aug 03 21:22:28 <Susana_>	muelli: the problem of people comming to irc asking for someone to change their bugs from unconfirmed
 230 Aug 03 21:22:56 <muelli>	yeah sure torkiano. As I'm saying, a bug should be NEW if it's ready to fix. but there might be cases where UNCONFIRMED is still a valid state. i.e. when the developers should discuss a bug on a mailinglist. NEW or NEEDINFO would be a wrong state.
 231 Aug 03 21:23:23 *	Susana has left (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
 232 Aug 03 21:23:28 <Susana_>	they think that unconfirmed is neglicting 
 233 Aug 03 21:23:29 <muelli>	well Susana. I have never experienced that, but there should be a reason why a bug is not NEW. If there is none, it should be NEW... :)
 234 Aug 03 21:24:29 <Susana_>	muelli: some developers don't like it when other people set their bugs to new
 235 Aug 03 21:24:56 <fizz>	I'd say the only one able to really decide whether it's more than unconfirmed is a dev
 236 Aug 03 21:24:58 <Susana_>	because to them new is "I have seen it and i'm thinking about implementing ths soon"
 237 Aug 03 21:25:04 <andre>	Susana_, true
 238 Aug 03 21:25:08 <fizz>	or put differently
 239 Aug 03 21:25:18 *	mbarnes is now known as mbarnes|afk
 240 Aug 03 21:25:30 <torkiano>	muelli, so you said that NEW=TRIAGED (ready to work on it (it has all the info a devel would need)) ?
 241 Aug 03 21:25:31 <fizz>	are you really sure the problem is in the module the bug has been filed against?
 242 Aug 03 21:25:37 <muelli>	Do you have an example Susana_? Because I can't really imagine how anybody can be against setting a bug to NEW if it really is ready to fix.
 243 Aug 03 21:25:46 <fizz>	just as an example
 244 Aug 03 21:26:12 *	Drom has left (Leaving.)
 245 Aug 03 21:26:33 <andre>	gimp developers can be really... different when triaging their bugs for example.
 246 Aug 03 21:26:51 <andre>	"don't confirm enhancement requests, they have to be discussed on the mailing list first!"
 247 Aug 03 21:27:13 <fizz>	muelli: that's one. I dislike people setting my bugs to NEW when the bug isn't actually in my module (or GNOME, or maybe there really isn't any bug at all)
 248 Aug 03 21:27:26 <fizz>	especially for enhancements, yes
 249 Aug 03 21:27:28 <muelli>	well. I see. whlie I fully understand that different developers have their own habits, I believe we should encourage other people to contribute to the project as well. And I believe, that a bug, which is ready to fix, should be set to NEW whatsoever because a volunteer might cross the bugzilla and pick a ready-to-fix task.
 250 Aug 03 21:27:55 <fizz>	muelli: define "ready to fix"
 251 Aug 03 21:28:27 <muelli>	fizz: good stacktrace, prolly some duplicates, so that you know that a special function crashes.
 252 Aug 03 21:29:13 <fizz>	that might work for crashers, although the owning module could still change
 253 Aug 03 21:29:14 <muelli>	I wouldn't set enhancements to NEW though,if I'm not reading the developer mailinglist and know that this particular issue is on the roadmap.
 254 Aug 03 21:29:16 <DrBob>	+1 for fizz
 255 Aug 03 21:29:21 <muelli>	yep, I see that.
 256 Aug 03 21:29:26 <DrBob>	I think NEW should only be set by developers
 257 Aug 03 21:29:39 <torkiano>	muelli, so TRIAGED, not only CONFIRMED ;)
 258 Aug 03 21:30:24 <muelli>	but still, the problem we're discussion about, are reporter who feel that nobody takes care of their issue, right? (Because the status is still UNCONFIRMED). And if the reporter filed an enhancement and the maintainer haven't decided to implement that, it's simply not confirmed and thus not NEW :)
 259 Aug 03 21:30:31 <muelli>	torkiano: not yet ;-)
 260 Aug 03 21:31:26 <hggdh>	there is a possible change in behaviour: I think it should be NEW if (a) confirmed; (b) enough data for a developer to lokk at
 261 Aug 03 21:31:38 <hggdh>	argh. look
 262 Aug 03 21:31:59 <muelli>	:)
 263 Aug 03 21:32:04 *	hggdh has to remember not to talk/code much after a sleepness night
 264 Aug 03 21:32:11 <hggdh>	or type
 265 Aug 03 21:32:16 *	muelli gets himself a beer.
 266 Aug 03 21:32:36 *	Drom (~Dromatko@213.191.119.2) has joined #bugs
 267 Aug 03 21:32:40 <hggdh>	darn! All I have if coffee! And American, at that :-(
 268 Aug 03 21:33:17 <muelli>	so, have you finished your point hggdh? Or are you still thinking and writing? ;-)
 269 Aug 03 21:33:26 *	lakhil (~Administr@117.192.29.234) hat #bugs verlassen
 270 Aug 03 21:33:32 <hggdh>	heh. yes, I made my point. I think.
 271 Aug 03 21:33:48 <torkiano>	today NEW = CONFIRMED and is not very used. I think that if we change to NEW=CONFIRMED, the NEW status will have more value
 272 Aug 03 21:34:51 <hggdh>	well, really, it is just a name. It is the *usage* that is important. A NEW bug is, by definition, what other BTSs would call confirmed (like launchpad, for example)
 273 Aug 03 21:35:29 <andre>	true
 274 Aug 03 21:35:44 <fizz>	ideally, we'd simply have a Triaged checkbox or something
 275 Aug 03 21:35:57 <torkiano>	if we change to NEW=TRIAGED, I mean
 276 Aug 03 21:36:55 <fizz>	or just add a TRIAGED state though I suppose an additional state has other costs
 277 Aug 03 21:37:11 <hggdh>	I think it would be better to have it this way: since there is no triaged status, a bug will go from unconfirmed to new to <whatelse>. Adding a new status will be a major operation
 278 Aug 03 21:37:37 <muelli>	I still don't see the problem we're trying to solve :( I don't see people joining #bugs and complaining about their bug not being cared of as a real problem, because their bug might simply not be confirmed
 279 Aug 03 21:38:31 <fizz>	as long as it's not a problem for bugsquadders I agree with muelli: not an issue
 280 Aug 03 21:38:41 <hggdh>	+1
 281 Aug 03 21:38:44 <Susana_>	whiteboard and keywords generate bug mail right? maybe we could use some field that doesn't generate spam to flag triaged bugs only internaly..
 282 Aug 03 21:39:04 <torkiano>	muelli, It'll be confirmed (NEW) when the bug has the enougth information
 283 Aug 03 21:39:24 <andre>	i also don't think it's important to change current behaviour
 284 Aug 03 21:39:27 <hggdh>	there is also that. We might be able to "test" the concept by abusing some non-spammable field, yes. Good idea.
 285 Aug 03 21:39:51 <muelli>	torkiano: sure :) I mean, there is (of course) no definition for "enough information". So in question, either ask here, on bugsquad-list or risk getting a flame ;-)
 286 Aug 03 21:40:28 <hggdh>	andre, I agree: I think it is important to minimise behaviour changes
 287 Aug 03 21:41:07 <muelli>	So torkiano. Do you think the issue with the NEW./.TRIAGED state has suffincently be discussed? Anybody else?
 288 Aug 03 21:41:40 <torkiano>	muelli, gnome version, distribution used, version of the program ... easy info that lots of time is missed
 289 Aug 03 21:41:45 <torkiano>	muelli, of course ;)
 290 Aug 03 21:41:54 *	Drom has left (Leaving.)
 291 Aug 03 21:42:44 <hggdh>	it would be good if downstream bugs always included the downstream bug link
 292 Aug 03 21:42:44 <muelli>	Susana_, andre, DrBob, fizz, ... Anything to add to the NEW vs. TRIAGED point? Did I get it right, that we'll do nothing in this regard?
 293 Aug 03 21:42:54 <andre>	i wouldn't change it currently
 294 Aug 03 21:42:58 <fizz>	fine with me
 295 Aug 03 21:43:13 <fizz>	hggdh: +1
 296 Aug 03 21:44:01 <muelli>	sounds good to me. So let's close that TRIAGED point. Next is the downstream problem..?
 297 Aug 03 21:44:01 <hggdh>	we try to do that with Ubuntu bugs, everywhere we open an upstream bug. Although not all devs will go there, it is a refback
 298 Aug 03 21:44:31 <fizz>	it's a nuisance when *only* the link is posted, though
 299 Aug 03 21:44:32 <torkiano>	hggdh, we can do that with bugzilla 3.4, I think
 300 Aug 03 21:44:59 <muelli>	well. I agree that it'd be nice to have the backreference. It'd be good if the BTSs could speak to each other :-\ I actually don't want to check manually :(
 301 Aug 03 21:45:04 <hggdh>	fizz, indeed. The refer-back link is *additional* data
 302 Aug 03 21:45:13 <hggdh>	torkiano, really?
 303 Aug 03 21:45:55 <torkiano>	hggdh, http://www.bugzilla.org/releases/3.4/release-notes.html#v34_feat_see
 304 Aug 03 21:46:00 <andre>	yes
 305 Aug 03 21:46:06 <muelli>	We could ask downstream to give their link if they file a bug upstream though. Wouldn't be bad to have contact with downstream anyway.
 306 Aug 03 21:46:36 <andre>	still i want people to paste the text in b.g.o. i don't want to click a downstream link to read the report or see some screenshots
 307 Aug 03 21:46:44 <andre>	time is precious.
 308 Aug 03 21:46:50 <andre>	especially for developers
 309 Aug 03 21:47:06 <hggdh>	+1. On Ubuntu we are moving (or trying to) to set official contacts to upstream
 310 Aug 03 21:47:17 <muelli>	andre: it'd be your job as a triager to minimize the time a developer needs to fix an issue then ;-)
 311 Aug 03 21:47:31 <muelli>	But again: Is this a problem? I remember Debian and Ubuntu bugs which AFAIR always have the reference.
 312 Aug 03 21:47:31 <andre>	true
 313 Aug 03 21:47:41 <andre>	yeah, i don't see an issue either.
 314 Aug 03 21:48:42 *	lajjr_ (~lajjr@71.181.209.2) has joined #bugs
 315 Aug 03 21:48:59 <muelli>	But let's follow the downstream contact thing. I think it'd be nice to be a contact person for downstream. So I think I like if we introduce ourselves to, e.g. fedora bugsquadders and ask them to ask us in case of any problems with the GNOME bugzilla or any triager being rude and stuff...
 316 Aug 03 21:49:22 <muelli>	Just a spontanous idea though. Dunno if the work is really worth it.
 317 Aug 03 21:50:26 <muelli>	So do we have any volunteers introducing themselves to, say, Fedora, Debian, Gentoo, .. I think we are well equiped with Ubuntu guys :)
 318 Aug 03 21:51:19 <andre>	i think in fedora forwarding is done by downstream developers, no "single point of failure" :-P
 319 Aug 03 21:53:07 <muelli>	hm. So let's not do anything with that regard. I'll try to come up with a more elaborate next meeting... Or does anybody want to discuss having contact to downstream now? DrBob, Susana_, fizz, hggdh, etc..?
 320 Aug 03 21:53:19 <andre>	i don't really need it :)
 321 Aug 03 21:53:30 <fizz>	not me
 322 Aug 03 21:54:09 *	andre looks at the clock ;-)
 323 Aug 03 21:54:12 <muelli>	torkiano, you said, that version and other easy metadata is missing often? That'd be uncool of course. So I propose that we'll fill the data once we see missing fields ;-)
 324 Aug 03 21:54:21 <muelli>	can we search for such bugs missing that easy metadata?
 325 Aug 03 21:55:27 <andre>	i don't think it's that important. only fixing that creates lots of bugmail. but when triaging/changing a bug it's nice to set, yes
 326 Aug 03 21:55:40 <muelli>	+1
 327 Aug 03 21:56:03 *	lajjr has left (Ping timeout: 600 seconds)
 328 Aug 03 21:56:16 *	muelli waits for other people to react ;-)
 329 Aug 03 21:56:22 <torkiano>	+1
 330 Aug 03 21:56:30 <andre>	time out. okay. next topic. ;-)
 331 Aug 03 21:57:10 *	mbarnes|afk is now known as mbarnes
 332 Aug 03 21:57:19 <torkiano>	Should we use NOTABUG resolution? (How to deal with suggestions request)
 333 Aug 03 21:57:29 <muelli>	yeah, couldn't make anything out of it yet
 334 Aug 03 21:58:19 <torkiano>	See what Ubuntu does here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#An idea to improve Ubuntu
 335 Aug 03 21:58:23 <andre>	i leave that up to developers
 336 Aug 03 21:58:24 <muelli>	I mean, we have a NOTABUG resolution :) And I use it from time to time
 337 Aug 03 21:58:24 <muelli>	:)
 338 Aug 03 21:58:35 <andre>	torkiano, please post URLs with %20 :-)
 339 Aug 03 21:58:44 <andre>	it's about enhancement requests only
 340 Aug 03 21:58:52 <Susana_>	suggestion requests are enhancements, if put them in a separate place we willhave to triage two places
 341 Aug 03 21:59:13 <muelli>	well andre. I mostly close NEEDINFO as NOTABUG if the discussion was about why this would be a bug, f.e.
 342 Aug 03 21:59:34 <andre>	muelli, ...for enhancement requests?
 343 Aug 03 21:59:46 <andre>	URL was https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#An%20idea%20to%20improve%20Ubuntu
 344 Aug 03 21:59:52 <DrBob>	I use it for when people want to change, e.g., the default behaviour, and they're wrong
 345 Aug 03 22:00:02 <andre>	torkiano, that's not what Ubuntu does. It's just a proposal to Ubuntu.
 346 Aug 03 22:00:10 <andre>	yeah. i don't see any issue here/.
 347 Aug 03 22:00:13 <muelli>	andre: AFAIR I closed enhancements as WONTFIX if the maintainers showed that it's not an issue.
 348 Aug 03 22:00:23 <andre>	muelli, yes, +1
 349 Aug 03 22:00:50 <muelli>	But stuff like "video doesn't play in totem" and the reporter was asked to set from Xine to GStreamer but hasn't done it yet (or so..) then I closed as NOTABUG IIRC.
 350 Aug 03 22:01:39 <DrBob>	muelli: That should probably be OBSOLETE instead
 351 Aug 03 22:01:42 <muelli>	So in short: I don't see any problem we need to discuss :) And, just if it's not clear: I don't think a brainstorm.gnome.org is a good idea for GNOME.
 352 Aug 03 22:01:54 <andre>	i also don't see a problem.
 353 Aug 03 22:02:02 <muelli>	yeah DrBob. In that particular example you might be right.
 354 Aug 03 22:02:33 <torkiano>	great; next point, then?
 355 Aug 03 22:02:34 <muelli>	so torkiano, do you want to elaborate on that? i.e. what problem you see we have or how we can improve our bugexperience? ;-)
 356 Aug 03 22:02:49 <muelli>	sure, If you (or anybody else) don't want to add anything :)
 357 Aug 03 22:03:42 <torkiano>	I understand better now the NOTABUG status
 358 Aug 03 22:03:53 <muelli>	:) good :)
 359 Aug 03 22:04:16 <muelli>	So I'll just pick the next point then (sorry for speeding a little...)
 360 Aug 03 22:04:16 <muelli>	# Discuss the severity and priority fields (kill priority field? (a bit confusing for novices, is really useful?)) 
 361 Aug 03 22:04:29 <andre>	if novices don't know they shouldn't touch it.
 362 Aug 03 22:04:35 <andre>	nothing to remove here, developers use it.
 363 Aug 03 22:04:41 <muelli>	well, I don't think we have to do anything. Novices are not actively encouraged to fiddle around with the knobs anyway. OTOH I don't know if these are actively used by the maintainers anyway.
 364 Aug 03 22:04:47 <muelli>	Oh, do they...?
 365 Aug 03 22:05:10 <andre>	sometimes, yes :)
 366 Aug 03 22:05:27 <muelli>	well, I mean if we have them, they are free to use them and they don't disturb us in any way. At least I don't see why they should disturb us, because I don't think that they are a problem for noobs.
 367 Aug 03 22:05:36 <torkiano>	that is the point, is really used?
 368 Aug 03 22:05:40 <muelli>	s/think/know/
 369 Aug 03 22:05:55 <muelli>	ah, forget about that
 370 Aug 03 22:07:19 <torkiano>	so, next point then :) ?
 371 Aug 03 22:07:24 <muelli>	well torkiano. I actually don't care if anybody uses them or not. In fact, I think they can help organize tasks but I am totally fine if anybody doesn't use them...
 372 Aug 03 22:07:36 <muelli>	Not using them doesn't disturb me :)
 373 Aug 03 22:08:03 <fizz>	they are being used
 374 Aug 03 22:08:21 <torkiano>	ok, so that field is only used by the developers?
 375 Aug 03 22:08:32 <muelli>	Yeah, definitely.
 376 Aug 03 22:08:40 <muelli>	More maintainers probably.
 377 Aug 03 22:08:57 <fizz>	there more or less equivalent ;-)
 378 Aug 03 22:09:06 <torkiano>	ok, maybe we can said it somewhere
 379 Aug 03 22:09:07 <fizz>	s/there/that's/
 380 Aug 03 22:09:14 <muelli>	I mean if you happen to know the roadmap, you might know what priority several bugs have and thus can set this status accordingly...
 381 Aug 03 22:09:45 <muelli>	yeah fizz, you're right. But we have a couple of bigger projects though :)
 382 Aug 03 22:10:48 <andre>	so, next?
 383 Aug 03 22:10:59 <muelli>	well, and severity is a bit odd. It should mean how big the impact^tm of a bug is. So that's mainly used for crashers in the GNOME bugzilla and developers are free to set that according to their flavour. Although I haven't seen anybody resetting that...
 384 Aug 03 22:11:40 *	fizz has...
 385 Aug 03 22:11:53 <muelli>	It's set to "very high" for crashers by default. So feel free to set that to the highest severity if anybody has filed a bug himself and not, e.g. though bugbuddy
 386 Aug 03 22:12:03 <muelli>	yeah next then ;-)
 387 Aug 03 22:12:15 <torkiano>	Kill VERIFIED and CLOSED status ? 
 388 Aug 03 22:12:29 <fizz>	closed?
 389 Aug 03 22:12:38 <torkiano>	(They are not used)
 390 Aug 03 22:12:40 <andre>	same as for the former one: i don't see a big issue, but i have seen (very very few) developers using it
 391 Aug 03 22:12:57 <andre>	torkiano, why are they not used? did you query in gnome bugzilla for bugs with that status?
 392 Aug 03 22:13:01 <DrBob>	I've used VERIFIED a few times
 393 Aug 03 22:13:16 <torkiano>	Sorry, not very used
 394 Aug 03 22:13:25 <Susana_>	one very good use for pri is that downstream usually uses nor for crashers which distincts them from bugbuddy
 395 Aug 03 22:13:29 <andre>	i also use VERIFIED now but I admit that's because of the workflows a big company pushed me into :-P
 396 Aug 03 22:13:57 <Susana_>	good for someone who is triaging and doesn't want to see them
 397 Aug 03 22:14:17 <fizz>	I sometimes see reporters using VERIFIED, too, after a fix has been applied (and possibly released)
 398 Aug 03 22:14:17 <andre>	i admit they are quite useless in b.g.o, but not totally useless :-)
 399 Aug 03 22:14:23 <muelli>	heh Susana_. Good catch. Is there anything we want to do about that? (FWIW: I don't).
 400 Aug 03 22:14:28 <andre>	however i have not seen anybody being confused by it. so keep it.
 401 Aug 03 22:14:58 <hggdh>	+1 ONE DAY THEY MAY GET TO BE USED
 402 Aug 03 22:15:06 *	hggdh begs pardon
 403 Aug 03 22:15:14 <Susana_>	muelli: I like it, i know i don't need to check for dups in those cases (seb or pedro bugs)
 404 Aug 03 22:15:30 <muelli>	hhe
 405 Aug 03 22:15:36 <andre>	we could change stock answers to tell the reporters "once this has been released by your distro feel free to verify"
 406 Aug 03 22:15:41 <muelli>	good Susana_. Back to the other thing then :)
 407 Aug 03 22:15:50 <fizz>	heh, seb has filed his share of dupes ;-)
 408 Aug 03 22:15:55 <muelli>	uh, how would I set VERIFIED anyway? :D
 409 Aug 03 22:16:15 <DrBob>	muelli: It's an option once a bug is RESOLVED
 410 Aug 03 22:16:25 <DrBob>	"Leave as RESOLVED INCOMPLETE      
 411 Aug 03 22:16:25 <DrBob>	                            Reopen bug                  
 412 Aug 03 22:16:25 <DrBob>	                            Mark bug as VERIFIED"
 413 Aug 03 22:16:53 <hggdh>	how much email will be generated?
 414 Aug 03 22:17:30 <fizz>	it's a state change, so anybody subscribed to that will get mail
 415 Aug 03 22:17:41 <muelli>	uh, I though this VERIFIED is the same as NEW. So if a bug is CLOSED but wasn't NEW, I though you can REOPEN and set it to NEW... *shrug*.
 416 Aug 03 22:17:53 <Susana_>	I think verified is an extra step to garanty quality after a fix has been delievered, it is important but it involves even more work
 417 Aug 03 22:18:05 <andre>	{FIXED,WONTFIX,OBSOLETE,whatever} -> VERIFIED -> CLOSED
 418 Aug 03 22:18:22 <hggdh>	+1
 419 Aug 03 22:18:31 <Susana_>	especially because it only makes sense to be vefied by the people who see the bug
 420 Aug 03 22:18:33 <andre>	a developer closes as FIXED, a reporter then closes as VERIFIED, a product manager then closes as CLOSED
 421 Aug 03 22:18:40 <andre>	yeah, doesn't apply to gnome ;-)
 422 Aug 03 22:18:56 <hggdh>	but still is a good flow from the QA perspective
 423 Aug 03 22:19:03 <muelli>	uh
 424 Aug 03 22:19:07 <torkiano>	muelli, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bugzilla_Lifecycle_color-aqua.svg
 425 Aug 03 22:19:10 <muelli>	kinda redundant
 426 Aug 03 22:19:28 <fizz>	not really
 427 Aug 03 22:19:32 <muelli>	for GNOME at least ;-)
 428 Aug 03 22:19:33 <muelli>	but probably highly important for tieish companies ;-)
 429 Aug 03 22:20:58 <muelli>	So the discussion is about what exactly? To kill VERIFIED and CLOSED?
 430 Aug 03 22:21:07 <torkiano>	muelli, I agree that is a bit redundant (I vote for kill those status), but I think that andre idea is good: " we could change stock answers to tell the reporters "once this has been released by your distro feel free to verify""
 431 Aug 03 22:21:28 <muelli>	ah, now I get it. Yeah, that sounds good to me.
 432 Aug 03 22:21:31 <hggdh>	not a bad idea
 433 Aug 03 22:21:32 <DrBob>	muelli: Yes it is
 434 Aug 03 22:21:56 <hggdh>	are we agreed on it? +1 from me
 435 Aug 03 22:22:01 <andre>	+1 okay. ACTION: change stock answer encouraging reporter to verify after fixed
 436 Aug 03 22:22:03 <muelli>	andre: Are you willing to rewrite those stock answers and present them either later here in the meeting or during the next meeting? Or maybe in the meantime on bugsquad-list..?
 437 Aug 03 22:22:15 <andre>	muelli, i can do that, but not before the weekend comes
 438 Aug 03 22:22:16 <Susana_>	+1
 439 Aug 03 22:22:28 <andre>	it's in bugzilla-newer in git for any volunteers
 440 Aug 03 22:22:44 <muelli>	yeah andre. sure. take your time. Bugsquad hasn't moved for a long time, don't start hurrying now ;-)
 441 Aug 03 22:23:00 <muelli>	andre: the stockanswers you mean?
 442 Aug 03 22:23:13 <andre>	yes, stockanswers
 443 Aug 03 22:23:18 <muelli>	which will get displayed below the textarea in bugzilla?
 444 Aug 03 22:23:24 <torkiano>	andre, I can help you sending the patches, If you want
 445 Aug 03 22:23:25 <muelli>	with that javascript magic?
 446 Aug 03 22:24:19 <andre>	ok, next?
 447 Aug 03 22:24:25 *	lajjr_ is now known as lajjr
 448 Aug 03 22:24:27 <muelli>	yeah, good. Andre and torkiano  do that :) awesome
 449 Aug 03 22:24:41 *	Susana_ is now known as Susana
 450 Aug 03 22:24:44 <muelli>	"What to do with bugs about deprecated modules?"
 451 Aug 03 22:24:44 *	seb128 (~seb128@89.127.177.75) has joined #bugs
 452 Aug 03 22:24:55 *	licio has left (Leaving)
 453 Aug 03 22:25:02 <andre>	proposal: talk to maintainer(s) of deprecated module first
 454 Aug 03 22:25:27 <andre>	e.g. i talked to hadess (nautilus-cd-burner) and he himself wanted to close the remaining open tickets.
 455 Aug 03 22:25:31 <muelli>	hm. good question. So the problem could be, that time will be bound by people because they see it in the buglist or get mail from (maybe) obsolete bugs.
 456 Aug 03 22:25:32 <andre>	(and did a few days back)
 457 Aug 03 22:25:38 <DrBob>	If the deprecated module was superseded by something else, see if any of the bugs are applicable to the new module. Otherwise, nuke 'em
 458 Aug 03 22:25:52 <andre>	DrBob, i can't test 600 gnome-vfs bugs against gio/gvfs
 459 Aug 03 22:26:06 <DrBob>	That is true, but it might be feasible for the smaller modules
 460 Aug 03 22:26:25 <andre>	i closed some of them (the enhancement requests against gnome-vfs) a few months back and two people complained that i should have tested first
 461 Aug 03 22:26:38 <andre>	told them it's ridiculous and they themselves should take care about the bugs they reported.
 462 Aug 03 22:26:46 <DrBob>	Fair enough
 463 Aug 03 22:26:51 <hggdh>	so, andre's proposal: talking with the maintainer first is a good idea.
 464 Aug 03 22:26:51 <muelli>	I actually wouldn't do much about it for, say, two years or so. f.e. Debian decided to have such long release cycles IIRC and they could use the information in the bugs for anything we probably can't imagine now.
 465 Aug 03 22:27:00 <lajjr>	I can help if you give a task for me to do?
 466 Aug 03 22:27:10 <torkiano>	I vote to close all the enhacementes bugs
 467 Aug 03 22:27:10 <andre>	muelli, they can still use the info when the bug is closed. we don't remove info
 468 Aug 03 22:27:15 <Susana>	can't we tell the reporter the module is deprecated and ask them to see if it is valid for new product?
 469 Aug 03 22:27:35 <muelli>	not necessarily true andre: If they wanted to compile a list of known bugs, they would be lost
 470 Aug 03 22:28:01 <DrBob>	muelli: If all the bugs are closed with a stock message and perhaps a known status keyword, they'll be easy enough to find
 471 Aug 03 22:28:14 <muelli>	And these bugs of obsolete modules don't disturb us, do they?
 472 Aug 03 22:28:17 <andre>	proposal: 1) talk to maintainer first and get agreement (only one triager please, CC bugsquad list?), 2) add a warning comment that module is now deprecated and to please check against potential new module (like Susana wrote), 3) otherwise close 6 weeks later if untouched
 473 Aug 03 22:28:24 <Susana>	without closing, just to try to get a reaction
 474 Aug 03 22:28:40 <andre>	i want a clean bugzilla. so they do disturb me, yes.
 475 Aug 03 22:28:44 <muelli>	sure DrBob. I'm not saying to not close them at all. But to close them not that early.
 476 Aug 03 22:29:08 <DrBob>	muelli: And I'm saying we can close them that early
 477 Aug 03 22:29:15 <andre>	people only care when put under pressure. Hence when I close gnome-vfs tickets people finally retested against gvfs/gio and reassigned
 478 Aug 03 22:29:31 <andre>	muelli, i still don't see a reason why not to close.
 479 Aug 03 22:29:36 <andre>	they can query for closed bugs always.
 480 Aug 03 22:29:55 <torkiano>	andre, I vote for 2->3
 481 Aug 03 22:30:08 <andre>	torkiano, i don't understand
 482 Aug 03 22:30:10 *	fer has left (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
 483 Aug 03 22:30:39 <hggdh>	warning comment + summarilly closed after 6 weeks on default
 484 Aug 03 22:30:49 <torkiano>	hggdh, thank you ;)
 485 Aug 03 22:30:52 <muelli>	sure andre. But it's a lot more complicated to search for closed bugs which were obsolete by the time the module was obsoleted than just getting the list of new bugs.
 486 Aug 03 22:30:54 <andre>	i want to talk to maintainer first. always.
 487 Aug 03 22:31:11 <andre>	people get pissed quite easily i can tell you. it's still cat herding ;-)
 488 Aug 03 22:31:23 <andre>	hence i proposed 1->2->3 :-P
 489 Aug 03 22:31:42 <hggdh>	I agree. If we know the maintainer (and we should ;-), 1; 2; 3 bang! done
 490 Aug 03 22:32:17 <muelli>	And it just disturbs your esthetical taste, not our work in general, so I don't see an immediate need to close them in, say, the next 6 weeks.
 491 Aug 03 22:32:33 <andre>	muelli, it slows down queries for open bugs.
 492 Aug 03 22:32:38 <andre>	it's not aesthetical
 493 Aug 03 22:33:24 <muelli>	but since I'm not from a distro that makes use of deprecated modules (in fact, I'm not from a distro at all) closing them doesn't really disturb me... But I feel it'd be nice to write to, say, Debian in case they want to mirror the current information.
 494 Aug 03 22:33:51 <torkiano>	How long should we wait for a response from the maintainers?
 495 Aug 03 22:33:57 <muelli>	andre: I don't think that.
 496 Aug 03 22:34:20 <andre>	torkiano, normally they are responsive. as I propose to CC bugsquad mailing list, we could still discuss on the ML if there is no answer
 497 Aug 03 22:34:24 <andre>	no need for a rule i'd say
 498 Aug 03 22:34:43 <torkiano>	andre, +1
 499 Aug 03 22:35:41 <torkiano>	[2] and set the bug as NEEDINFO, rigth?
 500 Aug 03 22:36:23 <muelli>	hggdh: do you know debian bugsquadders that might be interested in bugs for currently OBSOLETE modules?
 501 Aug 03 22:36:46 <andre>	torkiano, [2]: oh, right :)
 502 Aug 03 22:38:01 *	fizz has left (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
 503 Aug 03 22:38:33 *	fizz (~fizz@ip-81-210-151-47.unitymediagroup.de) has joined #bugs
 504 Aug 03 22:38:56 <muelli>	hm.
 505 Aug 03 22:39:37 <Susana>	muelli: maybe when we contact the developer and cc bugsquad we could also CC gnome-debian or debian-gnome (don't remember if it is one or the other)
 506 Aug 03 22:40:27 <Susana>	but i know the is a gnome list for debian maintainers
 507 Aug 03 22:40:32 <Susana>	*there
 508 Aug 03 22:40:57 <muelli>	Susana: we probably need to do that one time. Like "dear downstream, we're about to close all bugs from obsolete modules which are: foo, bar, baz. Please copy the information you need now, or find the informatino later by querying for "closed and keyword obsolete-module" or so.
 509 Aug 03 22:42:09 <torkiano>	muelli, we can do that when we receive the response from the maintainer
 510 Aug 03 22:42:14 <muelli>	I think andres proposal is the way to go. Altough I'd somehow like to change the proposal 3 to something like 6 month or so.
 511 Aug 03 22:42:20 <muelli>	I mean, we have a history and we don't need to hide it :)
 512 Aug 03 22:42:58 <muelli>	well torkiano. If the maintainers close all the bugs, the informatino is already gone :)
 513 Aug 03 22:43:38 <Susana>	muelli: I think that what andre was trying to say is that they will only answerwhen you close the bug, so you're just delaying the answer 6 months :p
 514 Aug 03 22:43:41 <andre>	if we have NEEDINFO for 6 weeks after "is this still an issue in current GNOME", i'd also propose 6 weeks here.
 515 Aug 03 22:43:46 *	seb128 has left (Remote closed the connection)
 516 Aug 03 22:43:52 <andre>	Susana, true that :)
 517 Aug 03 22:44:10 <muelli>	hehe
 518 Aug 03 22:44:17 <torkiano>	andre, +1
 519 Aug 03 22:45:04 <muelli>	so yeah, Susana, would you like to find out the debian-gnome address (simple though) so that one of us can write them (FWIW I could do that)? We then write to the maintainers personally CCing bugsquad, right?
 520 Aug 03 22:45:45 <Susana>	muelli: sure
 521 Aug 03 22:45:47 <muelli>	oh, and let's close them with a keyword like obsolete-module-2009 or so.
 522 Aug 03 22:46:44 <muelli>	so, hm. If I understood that correctly, we have a couple of mails to write :) Can we compile a list of OBSOLETE modules? The email address of the maintainers should be "$module"-maint@gnome.org
 523 Aug 03 22:46:57 <hggdh>	muelli, no, I do not know of any (sorry for the delay, discussing an issue with my customer)
 524 Aug 03 22:48:05 <muelli>	And once we have a list, we need a text to write. So if you have time to write such a text please speak up :)
 525 Aug 03 22:48:45 <muelli>	(oh crap, laggy network in here)
 526 Aug 03 22:48:57 <torkiano>	muelli, where can I search a list of obsolete modules?
 527 Aug 03 22:49:43 <muelli>	torkiano: good question. I don't dare to answer. Andre should now, as he's in release team
 528 Aug 03 22:50:39 <muelli>	so ACTION: torkiano to compile a list of obsolete modules ready for our next meeting. Probably with the help of andre ;-)
 529 Aug 03 22:50:44 *	andre reads backlog
 530 Aug 03 22:50:51 <andre>	ah. sure :)
 531 Aug 03 22:50:57 <torkiano>	ok ;)
 532 Aug 03 22:51:08 <andre>	see subpages of http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven/
 533 Aug 03 22:51:12 <andre>	it's all public ;-)
 534 Aug 03 22:51:17 *	muelli thinks that IRC is still too asynchronous...
 535 Aug 03 22:51:28 <andre>	but i do know that some libgnome bugs still get fixed for example
 536 Aug 03 22:51:33 <torkiano>	We can create a wiki page with the status of the "contact" 
 537 Aug 03 22:51:43 <andre>	while gnome-vfs does not get fixes. hence another reason why to contact maintainers first
 538 Aug 03 22:51:56 <andre>	torkiano, what contact?
 539 Aug 03 22:52:05 <muelli>	so next ACTION is andre to write up a text to the maintainers ready for next meeting. Agreed?
 540 Aug 03 22:52:10 *	fizz has left (Leaving.)
 541 Aug 03 22:52:17 <andre>	ok
 542 Aug 03 22:52:37 <muelli>	We can then split up the mailing to the maintainers next meeting... Maybe coordinate that with some downstream distros.
 543 Aug 03 22:52:47 <torkiano>	andre, a list of deprecated modules and if we hace a response or not and what is the response
 544 Aug 03 22:52:49 <Susana>	i presume the deprecated list here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi is not updated :/
 545 Aug 03 22:52:58 *	fizz (~fizz@ip-81-210-151-47.unitymediagroup.de) has joined #bugs
 546 Aug 03 22:52:59 <andre>	no, it's not updated
 547 Aug 03 22:53:09 <muelli>	ACTION for Susana: Update the list in Bugzilla ;-) :D
 548 Aug 03 22:53:34 <andre>	but in release-team i only know about officially included stuff. there's a huge list of modules in bugzilla that probably are not worked on anymore
 549 Aug 03 22:53:48 <andre>	e.g. i closed update-manager or scaffold bugs a few weeks ago
 550 Aug 03 22:53:54 <andre>	scaffold saw it's lat release 6 years ago.
 551 Aug 03 22:54:01 <muelli>	:D
 552 Aug 03 22:54:06 <andre>	that's stuff you can find out by taking a look at the FTP server
 553 Aug 03 22:54:18 <andre>	hence it's not only me who can come up with a list ;-))
 554 Aug 03 22:54:39 <Susana>	muelli: ok
 555 Aug 03 22:54:50 <muelli>	I still don't think it's a really good idea to close these bugs. I mean we need to at least think about people taking the code and working on it...
 556 Aug 03 22:54:52 <torkiano>	I'll search the ftp for older modules
 557 Aug 03 22:55:21 <torkiano>	and I'll put it in a wiki page for discussion
 558 Aug 03 22:55:26 *	mbarnes has left (Ping timeout: 600 seconds)
 559 Aug 03 22:55:56 *	pterjan (~pterjan@cmoi.fasmz.org) has joined #bugs
 560 Aug 03 22:57:06 <Susana>	since we're not reaching a consensus i propose we discuss this on the list for more opinions
 561 Aug 03 22:57:10 <muelli>	so andre: will you write a text to be send to the maintainers? Like "Hey hey, are you still maitaining the module $foo and are you interested in it's bugs being open? You haven't been included in GNOME for a long time and we'd like to have the bugs closed because Andre thinks it's aestatically unpleasent to have your bugs open" ... ;-)
 562 Aug 03 22:57:25 <muelli>	It's totally fine if you don't take the job, just want to know... :)
 563 Aug 03 22:58:49 <muelli>	yeah Susana. Could be discussed on bugsquad-list. then we have at least one topic to discuss about.... *thinking*
 564 Aug 03 23:00:02 <andre>	muelli, everybody can take a look for such modules, and everybody can send such a text and CC bugsquad
 565 Aug 03 23:00:10 <andre>	i don't think it's a dedicated action just for me :)
 566 Aug 03 23:00:17 *	lajjr has left (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer))
 567 Aug 03 23:00:28 <andre>	i can do that for some modules, others can do it for others i'd say :)
 568 Aug 03 23:00:38 <andre>	it's simply that i don't want to block anybody who has more time than i have
 569 Aug 03 23:00:45 <muelli>	sure andre. But we need to have at least one text to send ;-)
 570 Aug 03 23:01:26 <andre>	ah. ok. ACTION: andre: come up with sexy "if ya ain't maintaining that module anymore, can i eat it?" email text
 571 Aug 03 23:01:50 <muelli>	yeah, I totally understand. I feel that you are the right one to come up with a simple example, probably by sending a mail to a maitainer and CCing bugsquad, because you know how to talk with with these "maintainers" ;-)
 572 Aug 03 23:02:00 <muelli>	yeah, awesome.
 573 Aug 03 23:02:41 <torkiano>	I can make a table with maintainers of old modules, so we can have a complete list
 574 Aug 03 23:02:55 <torkiano>	or do you think is not necessary?
 575 Aug 03 23:02:57 <muelli>	awesome torkiano.
 576 Aug 03 23:03:16 <hggdh>	and, may I suggest, we add it the result of the contact with them (close/do not touch)
 577 Aug 03 23:03:18 <muelli>	torkiano: I want to have such a list, even if it already exists ;-)
 578 Aug 03 23:03:30 <muelli>	hggdh: +1
 579 Aug 03 23:03:40 *	seb128 (~seb128@89.127.177.75) has joined #bugs
 580 Aug 03 23:03:50 <muelli>	k
 581 Aug 03 23:04:13 <muelli>	I think we should discuss next actions on that topic during our next meeting. Deciding the keyword to add when closing bugs...
 582 Aug 03 23:04:14 <torkiano>	hggdh, +1
 583 Aug 03 23:04:24 <andre>	iirc phomes and me one worked on a list of dead modules in svn...
 584 Aug 03 23:04:48 <andre>	http://live.gnome.org/ThomasAndersen/CvsCleanup
 585 Aug 03 23:04:58 <andre>	could be a nice starting place for a list of rotten modules
 586 Aug 03 23:05:32 *	rego has left (Leaving)
 587 Aug 03 23:05:36 *	mbarnes (~mbarnes@nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com) has joined #bugs
 588 Aug 03 23:06:01 <muelli>	okay guys. I'm sorry but my concentration is fading away. I either need to have a break or we discuss the very final steps like who compiles a protocol, follows up on bugsquad-list and kicks poeple to do their tasks...
 589 Aug 03 23:06:12 <andre>	can we quickly handle next topics?
 590 Aug 03 23:06:15 *	andre getting a bit tired, and there's beer and substances waiting in the kitchen
 591 Aug 03 23:06:26 *	hggdh fixes on 'beer'
 592 Aug 03 23:07:01 *	muelli gets himself another beer while they do the penalty kicking in soccer...
 593 Aug 03 23:08:29 <andre>	muelli, who's broadcasted?
 594 Aug 03 23:08:39 <muelli>	andre: HSV vs. Duesseldorf...
 595 Aug 03 23:08:49 <andre>	haha, ok
 596 Aug 03 23:09:08 <muelli>	So may I propose to get that meeting to an end? (as just a bunch of people are still with us :( )
 597 Aug 03 23:09:13 <andre>	+1
 598 Aug 03 23:10:15 <andre>	and i want to say thanks to torkiano for pushing to have a meeting and coming up with issues. great work man! :)
 599 Aug 03 23:10:23 <muelli>	Yes, me too.
 600 Aug 03 23:10:29 <torkiano>	andre, ;)
 601 Aug 03 23:10:31 <muelli>	Really, thank you very much dude!
 602 Aug 03 23:10:44 <muelli>	It's really good to see some action going on! :)
 603 Aug 03 23:10:47 <andre>	yes
 604 Aug 03 23:10:53 <torkiano>	I'm going to upudate all the wiki pages I can
 605 Aug 03 23:11:14 <muelli>	So what I want is a summary sent to bugsquad-list and uploaded to the wiki somewhere beneath bugsquad/meeting.
 606 Aug 03 23:11:32 <muelli>	also I want people to be kicked so that they do their jobs ;-)
 607 Aug 03 23:11:40 <Susana>	so we need to schedule the next meeting to discuss the rest of the points
 608 Aug 03 23:11:46 <torkiano>	When is the next bugsquad meeting?
 609 Aug 03 23:11:49 <torkiano>	:)
 610 Aug 03 23:12:03 <andre>	i'd propose same place, same time in a month
 611 Aug 03 23:12:14 <muelli>	let's not decide that here, because the pople who couldn't make it today can't raise their voice
 612 Aug 03 23:12:28 <andre>	yes
 613 Aug 03 23:12:36 <muelli>	let's have someone wrting to bugsquad-list and creating a doodle to determine the next meeting
 614 Aug 03 23:12:42 <torkiano>	one month or 15 days ?
 615 Aug 03 23:12:46 <andre>	one month
 616 Aug 03 23:12:56 <andre>	there will be no progress in 2 weeks, i tell you
 617 Aug 03 23:13:01 <muelli>	ACTION: muelli: come up with a new meeting doodle for next month' meeting
 618 Aug 03 23:13:17 <torkiano>	andre, :)
 619 Aug 03 23:13:59 <muelli>	who's going to write a summary, following up on bugquad-list and uploading it to the wiki? (I can probably do that if anybody sends me a backlog).
 620 Aug 03 23:14:08 <torkiano>	http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/DeprecatedModules
 621 Aug 03 23:14:11 <muelli>	(but it'll probably take a week)
 622 Aug 03 23:14:46 <andre>	i can send a backlog, maybe i find also time for it earlier, don't know yet :)
 623 Aug 03 23:14:54 <muelli>	DrBob: Still have an hour of paid RedHat time to write up a summary, upload everything and write to bugsquad-list?
 624 Aug 03 23:15:15 <DrBob>	muelli: I don't think that's for me to say
 625 Aug 03 23:15:38 *	muelli whispers to andre: HSV hat gewonnen :)
 626 Aug 03 23:15:58 <andre>	muelli, damnit! :-P
 627 Aug 03 23:16:13 <muelli>	well DrBob, as a Bugsuqad member, you are :) But you don't have to of course. And if you don't feel ready^tm it's not an issue at all.
 628 Aug 03 23:16:41 <muelli>	so, okay, as I've said: I can do it, but it takes me at least a week due to holidays and everything.
 629 Aug 03 23:17:06 <torkiano>	muelli, I'm going to update http://live.gnome.org/JavierJardon/Bugsquad with the things discussed here
 630 Aug 03 23:17:57 <Susana>	muelli: I can do it if you want, enjoy your vacations
 631 Aug 03 23:18:03 *	baptistemm has left (« Beam me up Scotty »)
 632 Aug 03 23:18:36 <muelli>	woahr Susana, that'd be great :) I didn't ask you directly because I felt that you have enough stuff to do already :)
 633 Aug 03 23:18:59 <andre>	i'll simply post the unedited log to bugsquad list, okay?
 634 Aug 03 23:19:19 <muelli>	so awesome, we have Susana and torkiano writing a protocol, summarising the points we've discussed and it's solutions as well as listing the actions...
 635 Aug 03 23:19:42 <muelli>	andre: oh no, that'd be a pain to read. I think torkiano and Susana will do a great job summarizing everything :)
 636 Aug 03 23:19:52 <andre>	okay :)
 637 Aug 03 23:20:36 <muelli>	andre: but you can poke the poeple and check whether they'll do their jobs :)
 638 Aug 03 23:21:07 <Susana>	ok I'll do that in the next days and check with torkiano 
 639 Aug 03 23:21:08 <andre>	hehe
 640 Aug 03 23:21:15 <andre>	thanks everybody for the nice meeting!
 641 Aug 03 23:21:30 <muelli>	I for myself, could need a reminder of the jobs I've taken (no backlog...)
 642 Aug 03 23:21:43 <muelli>	k, do we have everything? Are we set?
 643 Aug 03 23:21:44 *	mkanat has left (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
 644 Aug 03 23:22:11 *	mkanat (~mkanat@c-67-188-1-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #bugs
 645 Aug 03 23:22:19 <Susana>	muelli: we'll include ACTIONS in the summary, don't worry
 646 Aug 03 23:22:20 <muelli>	I feel we're pretty good. Thank you guys for your attention and patience.
 647 Aug 03 23:22:21 <torkiano>	ok Susana, I ping you when I updated the wiki page.
 648 Aug 03 23:22:46 <torkiano>	thank you all :)
 649 Aug 03 23:23:23 <Susana>	torkiano: i'd like to add http://live.gnome.org/GettingTraces/ApplicationSpecificInstructions to the wiki page for discussion in the next meeting
 650 Aug 03 23:23:33 <Susana>	if you don't mind
 651 Aug 03 23:23:36 <muelli>	FWIW and not necessarily for the record: I'm muelli@jabber.ccc.de if anybody wants to add me on his/her jabber roster. I think it's quite nice to have some GNOMEy contacts...
 652 Aug 03 23:23:52 <torkiano>	Susana, of course, feel free to add anything you want
 653 Aug 03 23:24:38 <muelli>	okay, I think the one who has opened the meeting should "officially" close it now.. ;-)
 654 Aug 03 23:24:45 *	fizz has left (Leaving.)
 655 Aug 03 23:25:47 <andre>	torkiano, !! ^^ ;-)
 656 Aug 03 23:25:56 <torkiano>	aps :), thank you all for coming, see you next month ;)

Attached Files

To refer to attachments on a page, use attachment:filename, as shown below in the list of files. Do NOT use the URL of the [get] link, since this is subject to change and can break easily.
  • [get | view] (2009-08-04 09:49:22, 56.6 KB) [[attachment:bugsquad-meeting-log-2009-08-03.txt]]
  • [get | view] (2009-09-05 18:20:58, 24.5 KB) [[attachment:bugsquad-meeting-log-2009-09-05.txt]]
  • [get | view] (2009-10-10 13:02:17, 47.8 KB) [[attachment:bugsquad-meeting-log-2009-10-09.txt]]

You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.