I was recently looking at bug 18070 in relation to a problem I had installing Office 2010:
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18070
The last comment asks whether the bug can be marked STAGED. In talking with Sebastian he questioned whether it would make sense in this case, because the patch in the staging tree which improves behavior is clearly a hack as opposed to something which is progress toward a more permanent solution.
To me it made sense to go ahead and mark the bug as STAGED anyhow, to record the fact that one of the patches in the stating tree addresses the behavior. Perhaps this is one way to help associate patchsets with bugs so that we can tell the motivation for a particular patchset in staging. (In this case, a URL on the bug also has information about the motivation, here: https://dev.wine-staging.com/patches/132/ ).
So the question: If a staging patchset is more along the lines of a dead-end hack than it is progress toward a long-term solution, should bugs which are fixed by the patchset still be marked STAGED?
My gut differed from Sebastian's, so I thought it best to ask here to reach a consensus.
(I can see the value either way - just looking for a standard approach.)
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:10:30 -0600 Josh DuBois duboisj@codeweavers.com wrote:
So the question: If a staging patchset is more along the lines of a dead-end hack than it is progress toward a long-term solution, should bugs which are fixed by the patchset still be marked STAGED?
Our wine-staging wiki page (https://wiki.winehq.org/Wine-Staging) says:
"Wine Staging is the testing area of winehq.org. It contains bug fixes and features, which have not been integrated into the development branch yet. The idea of Wine Staging is to provide experimental features faster to end users and to give developers the possibility to discuss and improve their patches before they are integrated into the main branch."
IMO, the real question is why dead-end hacks are being included in staging in the first place.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Josh DuBois duboisj@codeweavers.com wrote:
I was recently looking at bug 18070 in relation to a problem I had installing Office 2010:
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18070
The last comment asks whether the bug can be marked STAGED. In talking with Sebastian he questioned whether it would make sense in this case, because the patch in the staging tree which improves behavior is clearly a hack as opposed to something which is progress toward a more permanent solution.
To me it made sense to go ahead and mark the bug as STAGED anyhow, to record the fact that one of the patches in the stating tree addresses the behavior. Perhaps this is one way to help associate patchsets with bugs so that we can tell the motivation for a particular patchset in staging. (In this case, a URL on the bug also has information about the motivation, here: https://dev.wine-staging.com/patches/132/ ).
So the question: If a staging patchset is more along the lines of a dead-end hack than it is progress toward a long-term solution, should bugs which are fixed by the patchset still be marked STAGED?
My gut differed from Sebastian's, so I thought it best to ask here to reach a consensus.
(I can see the value either way - just looking for a standard approach.)
IMO if the patch solves the bug for a user, and the patch is in staging, it should be marked STAGED. The whole point of staging is that the patches may not be up to par, but are good enough for some purpose. If Office works and it didn't before, I'd say that standard is met.
-
Austin English -
Josh DuBois -
Rosanne DiMesio