May 2007 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Bug triage, or spam?

by Tom Spear

On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <the3dfxdude(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Bug triage is a good idea so that stuff like this gets cleaned up. I'm > not sure what everyone wants though. I guess you can figure that out > :P See, my opinion of what triage is isnt the same as everyone else's.. Either way, I'll just leave resolved bugs resolved, until they stop me from finding a specific bug I'm looking for. Allow me to get a consensus. Random Closing of Resolved bugs that have no activity is not deemed helpful by everyone, even if it does help me, so would it be acceptable for me to close a few (less than 20) a day? That way I'm not spamming the list for any more than 30 mins, and I can still kind of make it easier to find the bugs that need a followup. -- Thanks Tom

May 31, 2007

Re: Bug triage, or spam?

by Jesse Allen

On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <speeddymon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <the3dfxdude(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Remember that this is only my opinion. Other people handle things a > > little different. It is probably true that the two recent bugs you > > mentioned I would have closed, but it was only resolved. It's just how > > it was handled. If you want to close bugs that are clearly done with > > like that, it's fine by me. And I do close bug reports with other > > status too, if it's one I really don't want to see again. > > > > If it's clear why you are closing bugs, it's all fine by me, whatever it is. > Just to clarify my reasoning, because I just now thought about the > _real_ reasoning lol, I often look thru lists of bugs that are > resolved as fixed and (although i havent done it in a few years, i was > going to start again), post a message to ask if the reporter can > confirm if it is fixed. So I was closing bugs that were > invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme so that they wouldnt show in the > lists of resolved bugs, so its less I have to sort thru.... > Bug triage is a good idea so that stuff like this gets cleaned up. I'm not sure what everyone wants though. I guess you can figure that out :P

May 31, 2007

Re: Bug triage, or spam?

by Tom Spear

On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <the3dfxdude(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Remember that this is only my opinion. Other people handle things a > little different. It is probably true that the two recent bugs you > mentioned I would have closed, but it was only resolved. It's just how > it was handled. If you want to close bugs that are clearly done with > like that, it's fine by me. And I do close bug reports with other > status too, if it's one I really don't want to see again. > > If it's clear why you are closing bugs, it's all fine by me, whatever it is. Just to clarify my reasoning, because I just now thought about the _real_ reasoning lol, I often look thru lists of bugs that are resolved as fixed and (although i havent done it in a few years, i was going to start again), post a message to ask if the reporter can confirm if it is fixed. So I was closing bugs that were invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme so that they wouldnt show in the lists of resolved bugs, so its less I have to sort thru.... -- Thanks Tom

May 31, 2007

Re: Bug triage, or spam?

by Jesse Allen

On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <speeddymon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <the3dfxdude(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Tom, > > > > This is how I finalize bugs: > > > > * When a bugs has decisively been fixed, by a merged patch, with test > > cases, or reported by user been fixed, then I close it. If it's > > decisively "not a wine bug" close invalid. > > * When a bug is rumored to be fixed, forgotten, or simply doesn't > > appear on your end, then probably resolve fixed, abandoned, or > > worksforme appropriately. > > * When the bug has been only set to resolved, and continues to have > > erroneous activity (i.e. commenting from random visitors that don't > > understand the report), then close it to discourage use of the bug. > > * If it's a bug that I don't know anything about, I shouldn't touch it. > > > > So the reason is, only "resolved" could maybe get revisited, and > > "closed" I never want to see again. Other than that, it makes no sense > > to me to close bugs unless there is some activity related to it (i.e. > > it is proved that an uncertain fix has really been fixed and the issue > > is done). Simply closing bugs worries me as does James. It really does > > need to be case-by-case, so what we know you are doing is right. > > Thanks for the clarification. So if it is already resolved as > anything other than fixed, just leave it alone unless it continues to > get activity. I still don't like it, but as with anything, majority > rules, so I will stop. Sorry for the spam everyone. > > -- > Thanks > > Tom > > > Remember that this is only my opinion. Other people handle things a little different. It is probably true that the two recent bugs you mentioned I would have closed, but it was only resolved. It's just how it was handled. If you want to close bugs that are clearly done with like that, it's fine by me. And I do close bug reports with other status too, if it's one I really don't want to see again. If it's clear why you are closing bugs, it's all fine by me, whatever it is. Jesse

May 31, 2007

Re: Bug triage, or spam?

by Tom Spear

On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <the3dfxdude(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Tom, > > This is how I finalize bugs: > > * When a bugs has decisively been fixed, by a merged patch, with test > cases, or reported by user been fixed, then I close it. If it's > decisively "not a wine bug" close invalid. > * When a bug is rumored to be fixed, forgotten, or simply doesn't > appear on your end, then probably resolve fixed, abandoned, or > worksforme appropriately. > * When the bug has been only set to resolved, and continues to have > erroneous activity (i.e. commenting from random visitors that don't > understand the report), then close it to discourage use of the bug. > * If it's a bug that I don't know anything about, I shouldn't touch it. > > So the reason is, only "resolved" could maybe get revisited, and > "closed" I never want to see again. Other than that, it makes no sense > to me to close bugs unless there is some activity related to it (i.e. > it is proved that an uncertain fix has really been fixed and the issue > is done). Simply closing bugs worries me as does James. It really does > need to be case-by-case, so what we know you are doing is right. Thanks for the clarification. So if it is already resolved as anything other than fixed, just leave it alone unless it continues to get activity. I still don't like it, but as with anything, majority rules, so I will stop. Sorry for the spam everyone. -- Thanks Tom

May 31, 2007

Re: Bug triage, or spam?

by Jesse Allen

On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <speeddymon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > It's a problem to me, it may not be a problem to you, but that doesn't > make it an invalid point. Marcus and Dan have both said to keep > going, I'm sure others here (I'm not trying to speak for anyone, so > someone else feel free to correct me if I am wrong) dont have any > problem with my doing that either. > > And you miss the point as well, most new bugs that are marked resolved > dont end up being closed on a case-by-case basis, which is why I am > going back and doing that! > > Case in point: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7885 has been > resolved for over a month, why was it not closed? > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8373 has been resolved for 2 > weeks, same question applies. > Tom, This is how I finalize bugs: * When a bugs has decisively been fixed, by a merged patch, with test cases, or reported by user been fixed, then I close it. If it's decisively "not a wine bug" close invalid. * When a bug is rumored to be fixed, forgotten, or simply doesn't appear on your end, then probably resolve fixed, abandoned, or worksforme appropriately. * When the bug has been only set to resolved, and continues to have erroneous activity (i.e. commenting from random visitors that don't understand the report), then close it to discourage use of the bug. * If it's a bug that I don't know anything about, I shouldn't touch it. So the reason is, only "resolved" could maybe get revisited, and "closed" I never want to see again. Other than that, it makes no sense to me to close bugs unless there is some activity related to it (i.e. it is proved that an uncertain fix has really been fixed and the issue is done). Simply closing bugs worries me as does James. It really does need to be case-by-case, so what we know you are doing is right. Jesse

May 31, 2007

Re: [d3drm/tests] d3drm is removed from Windows Vista

by Tom Wickline

On 5/11/07, Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger(a)gmx.at> wrote: > > > > I suppose that implies that any application using d3drm won't work on > > Vista? > Yes, I think ms stated that clearly somewhen. No idea why they removed it > since it just wraps to directdraw, and native d3drm works on wine(apart of a > whole lot of directdraw executebuffer bugs) Almost all of the small games here : http://roborangers.home.comcast.net/Archive.htm use d3drm they may be useful for testing as there free. Tom -- Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

May 31, 2007

Re: Whitespace changes in an indentation patch, is it acceptable?

by Dan Hipschman

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:23:59PM -0500, Tom Spear wrote: > I recall a few years back (2003?) There was a discussion about > removing extra whitespace at the end of lines, and someone came up > with a bash/sed script to look thru the entire wine tree, strip > trailing whitespace, and then somehow commit it (either with a really > large diff, or by it being run on the machine that the upstream tree > is on, I cant remember which). Once that was done, the tarballs > shrank by at least 1-2 megs in download size, and even more > uncompressed. I was curious, and got a really rough estimate of the number of files with trailing whitespace: $ find /var/work/wine/ -name '*.[chly]' | fgrep -v .tab | fgrep -v .yy \ | xargs grep -c '[[:space:]]\+$' | fgrep -v :0 | wc -l reported 1081 files. Checking for trailing whitespace after a backslash didn't turn up anything (which is good). I hardly think getting rid of trailing whitespace will shrink the tarballs by any significant amount, though.

May 31, 2007

Re: Bug triage, or spam?

by Tom Spear

On 5/31/07, James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Obviously someone that commits patches to the upstream bugzilla tree > > agrees with me, because otherwise, there either wouldnt be a resolved > > option, OR there would be a close option on the bugs that are in any > > state of open, which is something I have suggested before, to cut down > > on list traffic. > > > > We are our own project, and we use bugzilla differently, just like > every other project out there has their own practices. Ok. > > I honestly dont see why it is such an inconvenience to you for me to > > close the bugs that are marked resolved. You read thru every one of > > my emails because you dont trust my decisions, understandable, but if > > you are so worried about my marking a bug wrongly, then maybe you > > should stop developing, and strictly focus on helping clean up > > bugzilla, > > huh? That doesn't make any sense. You're saying I should take even > more time away from development to check your changes. No, I'm saying that if someone higher up in the heirarchy were to do this as well, then I wouldnt have as many bugs to mess with, and therefore I wouldnt be able to make as many bad changes. > I'm not the only one that reads each change, and even if I were, and > someone else took over, it's still wasted time on their part. I know you arent the only one who reads each change. What I'm saying is that someone who has more free time (someone who's time it wouldnt be wasting, because they can't do anything atm) should join the fun. > You continue to miss the point from the very beginning: you're trying > to fix a problem that doesn't exist. There's nothing wrong with old > bugs being left as resolved and marking new bugs closed on a case by > case basis. It's a problem to me, it may not be a problem to you, but that doesn't make it an invalid point. Marcus and Dan have both said to keep going, I'm sure others here (I'm not trying to speak for anyone, so someone else feel free to correct me if I am wrong) dont have any problem with my doing that either. And you miss the point as well, most new bugs that are marked resolved dont end up being closed on a case-by-case basis, which is why I am going back and doing that! Case in point: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7885 has been resolved for over a month, why was it not closed? http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8373 has been resolved for 2 weeks, same question applies. -- Thanks Tom

May 31, 2007

Re: Bug triage, or spam?

by James Hawkins

On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <speeddymon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/31/07, James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I do read through all of your bug emails, which is exactly the > > problem, because I don't trust that you make the right decision on > > every bug, and in some cases I've had to go back and correct it. That > > is the issue. > > It has been a small number of cases.. > That small number forces me to read the rest. > > The statement still stands. Resolved isn't resolved enough for you, > > but closed is...If a bug is marked resolved, I'm pretty sure it's > > resolved. > > Obviously someone that commits patches to the upstream bugzilla tree > agrees with me, because otherwise, there either wouldnt be a resolved > option, OR there would be a close option on the bugs that are in any > state of open, which is something I have suggested before, to cut down > on list traffic. > We are our own project, and we use bugzilla differently, just like every other project out there has their own practices. > > No one has problems with people correcting bugs that are marked > > incorrectly, but of the 30 or so bugs a day that you change, this case > > is a small amount. If you *only* changed this class of bugs, then > > that would be fine. > > I honestly dont see why it is such an inconvenience to you for me to > close the bugs that are marked resolved. You read thru every one of > my emails because you dont trust my decisions, understandable, but if > you are so worried about my marking a bug wrongly, then maybe you > should stop developing, and strictly focus on helping clean up > bugzilla, huh? That doesn't make any sense. You're saying I should take even more time away from development to check your changes. > or the inverse could be true, maybe you could just trust > that if I make a status change, it is the correct thing to do, and if > not, then let someone else, who does have more time on their hands, > catch it. I'm not the only one that reads each change, and even if I were, and someone else took over, it's still wasted time on their part. >Like you said, it's a small amount of bugs that are marked > incorrectly. Of that percentage, I represent an even smaller amount, > and like I said, I dont blindly close bugs, I read the majority of the > comments, especially the ones toward the end, and the initial report, > and then make a change only when I am confident that it is the right > change to make.. > You continue to miss the point from the very beginning: you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. There's nothing wrong with old bugs being left as resolved and marking new bugs closed on a case by case basis. -- James Hawkins

May 31, 2007