While trying to find packages that I consider I'd have the skills to give good feedback on, I keep coming up against the hard java etc stuff, that I have no idea about...
Is there currently a way to query bugzilla about say packages only written in java, python or c ?
Are bugzilla tags freeform, ie could any bugzilla user add such a tag to the review ?
DaveT.
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 09:45:58PM +1000, David Timms wrote:
While trying to find packages that I consider I'd have the skills to give good feedback on, I keep coming up against the hard java etc stuff, that I have no idea about...
Is there currently a way to query bugzilla about say packages only written in java, python or c ?
Are bugzilla tags freeform, ie could any bugzilla user add such a tag to the review ?
Yes, this would be useful to know.
At the moment all OCaml related bugs have 'ocaml' in the Summary line, and I have some searches which are basically freeform searches which check for 'ocaml' in the Summary. It would be nice to have a better more official way to handle this. Perhaps by depending on a "master" bug (the same way that ExcludeArch / Blocker bugs are tracked).
Rich.
On Monday 26 May 2008 13:57:37 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
At the moment all OCaml related bugs have 'ocaml' in the Summary line, and I have some searches which are basically freeform searches which check for 'ocaml' in the Summary. It would be nice to have a better more official way to handle this. Perhaps by depending on a "master" bug (the same way that ExcludeArch / Blocker bugs are tracked).
Imho the summary is a good place for this, because then one can easily check and filter for a particular language on the review mailinglist. Also it can be easily seen on a bug search results page. Maybe it could be agreed on a special way to mention it in case it is not already obvious, e.g. add the language in parenthesis after the package name, e.g.
Review Request: foobarmatic (ruby) - some foo for bar
Regards, Till
Till Maas wrote:
On Monday 26 May 2008 13:57:37 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
At the moment all OCaml related bugs have 'ocaml' in the Summary line, and I have some searches which are basically freeform searches which check for 'ocaml' in the Summary. It would be nice to have a better more official way to handle this. Perhaps by depending on a "master" bug (the same way that ExcludeArch / Blocker bugs are tracked).
Imho the summary is a good place for this, because then one can easily check and filter for a particular language on the review mailinglist. Also it can be easily seen on a bug search results page. Maybe it could be agreed on a special way to mention it in case it is not already obvious, e.g. add the language in parenthesis after the package name, e.g.
Review Request: foobarmatic (ruby) - some foo for bar
But language as a freeform random part of summary is not very clear either. Review Request: foobarmatic c - some foo for C++ code documentation parsing Review Request: foobarmatic written in c++ - makes ruby colored slippers Review Request: foobarmatic perl - pythons on a plane
Seems like use of a whiteboard status flag or tracker bug would be much more useful than trying to randomly search out those summary clues.
On Tue May 27 2008, Andrew Farris wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Also it can be easily seen on a bug search results page. Maybe it could be agreed on a special way to mention it in case it is not already obvious, e.g. add the language in parenthesis after the package name, e.g.
Review Request: foobarmatic (ruby) - some foo for bar
But language as a freeform random part of summary is not very clear either.
I did not suggest a freeform random part but a defined part of the subject, e.g. in parentheses.
Review Request: foobarmatic c - some foo for C++ code documentation parsing Review Request: foobarmatic written in c++ - makes ruby colored slippers Review Request: foobarmatic perl - pythons on a plane
Review Request: foobarmatic (c) - some foo for C++ code documentation parsing Review Request: foobarmatic (c++) - makes ruby colored slippers Review Request: foobarmatic (perl) - pythons on a plane
Regards, Till
Till Maas wrote:
On Tue May 27 2008, Andrew Farris wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Also it can be easily seen on a bug search results page. Maybe it could be agreed on a special way to mention it in case it is not already obvious, e.g. add the language in parenthesis after the package name, e.g.
Review Request: foobarmatic (ruby) - some foo for bar
But language as a freeform random part of summary is not very clear either.
I did not suggest a freeform random part but a defined part of the subject, e.g. in parentheses.
Review Request: foobarmatic c - some foo for C++ code documentation parsing Review Request: foobarmatic written in c++ - makes ruby colored slippers Review Request: foobarmatic perl - pythons on a plane
Review Request: foobarmatic (c) - some foo for C++ code documentation parsing Review Request: foobarmatic (c++) - makes ruby colored slippers Review Request: foobarmatic (perl) - pythons on a plane
Nevertheless getting everyone to conform to something that arbitrary is more difficult than tagging a tracker bug.
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:45 AM, David Timms dtimms@iinet.net.au wrote:
Are bugzilla tags freeform, ie could any bugzilla user add such a tag to the review ?
Keywords are not freeform, status whiteboard is. This is used for various things by different parties. In the bug triage world, we use it for a "we've been here" type tag. There's also a quasi-official tag of "NeedsRetesting" which will attract the attention of QA-minded folks to actually test a build for you. There's a few others which other folks use. If you want to use it for something else, feel free!
-
Andrew Farris -
Development discussions related to Fedora -
Jon Stanley -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Till Maas