On 5/12/07, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

Because many packages will be moved to Community I'd like to point few things regarding our bugtracker:

1) there is some amount of open bugreports for packages that are moving to Community/Unsupported.

2) there will be more packages in Community which means there will be larger amount of bugs in them (summarized).

Maybe it's a time now to create a new project in Flyspray for Community packages, and give all TUs permissions to assign/edit/close bugs in that project? Besides of a bit better tracking of bugs in Community packages this will allow to move those open bugreports for Community packages to new Flyspray's project.

Or should Community packages continue to use AUR comments for reporting and discussing bugs?

Opinions?

I've never liked AUR comments as a method of tracking bugs. Using a bug tracker seems like the right way to do things, and I don't think it would be too big of a problem to either refine the AUR project that already exists or start a new one. -Dan

On 5/12/07, eliott wrote:

...

"Dan McGee" wrote: I've never liked AUR comments as a method of tracking bugs. Using a bug tracker seems like the right way to do things, and I don't think it would be too big of a problem to either refine the AUR project that already exists or start a new one.

I agree with Dan.

Further, I think that since it largely seems that the TUs have historically been the pool from which several devs were brought in from, that it makes sense to have those folks using many of the same tools. This has a dual benefit of reducing the tools that are used (focusing), and getting potential new devs more familiar with the existing tools (training).

Another benefit is making the TUs seem less like "second class citizens" as someone else said. TUs are critical to Arch in it's current state.

On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 01:21:27PM +0300, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

2007/5/13, Aaron Griffin :

...

On 5/12/07, eliott wrote:

...

...

"Dan McGee" wrote: I've never liked AUR comments as a method of tracking bugs. Using a bug tracker seems like the right way to do things, and I don't think it would be too big of a problem to either refine the AUR project that already exists or start a new one.

I agree with Dan.

Further, I think that since it largely seems that the TUs have historically been the pool from which several devs were brought in from, that it makes sense to have those folks using many of the same tools. This has a dual benefit of reducing the tools that are used (focusing), and getting potential new devs more familiar with the existing tools (training).

Another benefit is making the TUs seem less like "second class citizens" as someone else said. TUs are critical to Arch in it's current state.

So, if noone complaints and everyone think that's a good idea - please setup Flyspray for this. ;-) There are few possibilities: 1) new project 2) new group in AUR project 3) new group in Arch Linux project

3rd seems more logical, IMHO.

What will the comments for AUR packages become then? Aren't they just used for problems and for users congratulating people? When we first wrote the system, the reason we wanted people to be able to post comments and not use a bug tracker was so that anyone looking at the package in the AUR interface would also see all the problems that people had brought up. With a bug tracker, that won't be possible anymore... Jason

Jason Chu wrote: What will the comments for AUR packages become then? Aren't they just used for problems and for users congratulating people?

It was my understanding that it would be only for 'community' packages. The general AUR packages would still use the commenting system. The general AUR packages are 'unofficial' anyway.

When we first wrote the system, the reason we wanted people to be able to post comments and not use a bug tracker was so that anyone looking at the package in the AUR interface would also see all the problems that people had brought up. With a bug tracker, that won't be possible anymore...

It would still be possible for the general AUR users. I see this proposal as more of a move of the TU devs off the aur system, and more into a an Arch-dev-like system, just a separate repository (a higher tier). Not sure if it is good or bad. I do like the idea of having the AUR handle only community non-build packages. For me, it crystallizes the focus of that application. It also makes it easier to draw a distinction between general user submitted, and Arch supported.