So if there aren't enough bugsquadders, but too many patches and too many bugs, maybe "GNOME" could issue a "call for bugsquadders" somewhere? Don't ask what GNOME can do for you, ask what you can do for GNOME! Join the bugsquad now! Your desktop environment needs you! Join the bugsquad now! Something like this :) Markus В Втр, 10/05/2005 в 23:21 +0200, Samuel Abels пишет: > Am Dienstag, den 10.05.2005, 20:55 +0200 schrieb Ronald S. Bultje: > > The problem is circular. We need more people to help us figure such > > stuff out, but in order to get those new people in, we need to spend > > more time on each of those parts, too. > > I have been hacking on non-core GTK/GNOME applications for a while and > planned to get involved a bit into hunting bugzilla bugs a few months > ago. Here is my experience: > > First I went through the (freshly created, back then) simple-bug list. I > estimate that at least 50% of the bugs were IMO marked "gnome-love" > falsely, because they either required discussion, required deep > knowledge about many components IMO, or already had a patch attached. > Some of that seemed to be the result of renaming "easy-fix" keyword, > which was sometimes used in situations that may not be too suited for > newbies. > > So today I went through the list again to find those bugs and write them > down. The situation seems to have improved quite since then, but I still > found plenty. Note that I was not picky to add something to the list and > if something was unclear that alone qualified a bug to appear here, > because I believe that especially gnome-love bugs should have a clear > description of what needs to be done: > > > Unclear. Requires discussion? > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163060 (epiphany) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140001 (gimp) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109035 (galeon) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139849 (epiphany) > > Requires discussion (is there a keyword that can be used to mark such > bugs?) or requires a different fix then originally mentioned: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136912 (conglomerate) > > Needs help: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135596 (gnome-panel) > > I agree to comment #4 (implement or close - who takes a pick?): > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52026 (glib) > > Comment #19 by Jody Goldberg, has this happened? Can the bug be closed?: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90932 (libgnomeui) > > Not sure... does #1 mean this is already fixed? > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125457 (conglomerate) > > Status requested: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75989 (libgnomeui) > > If this should still be done, someone should deny the last comment: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45436 (nautilus) > > Unclear whether it is still valid: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61269 (nautilus) > > Patch: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111763 (gnome-applets) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159084 (gthumb) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79326 (gnome-terminal) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47054 (nautilus) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170364 (gnome-terminal) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155948 (gtk+) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115732 (epiphany) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170659 (gnome-applets) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150926 (gnome-applets) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86569 (nautilus) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52772 (glib) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88585 (nautilus) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155854 (gnome-print) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125226 (gnome-panel) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77108 (gnome-applets) > > Patch, target was 2.8: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101281 (gedit) > > Patch/Help needed: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62713 (nautilus) > > Unclear, patch needs to be reviewed: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155487 (gedit) > > Comment #4 made this a bit unclear for me; someone should probably > clarify what exactly the desired behaviour is in both case: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115037 (nautilus) > > Should be commented (#5) or closed: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130220 (gtksourceview) > > Patch, should be accepted or discussed: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145121 (gtk+) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123578 (gnome-panel) > > The wording in the patch needs discussion; candidate for the usability > list?: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144585 (gnome-panel) > > Still valid/already fixed?: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137539 (gedit) > > A bit unclear what the right solution is: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95111 (gnome-session) > > Requires discussion: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79189 (gnome-utils) > > > 2. Patches are often not being reviewed. I submitted some 4 or 5 > patches, only one very trivial patch of which was since reviewed (kudos > to the Gimp developers); this was > two months ago. > > I am deliberately not pointing to those bugs to make clear that these > are not the intention of this email. Knowing that there are >600 > unreviewed patches in bugzilla I am trying to point to the general > problem instead: Some people complain that there are no new developers > getting involved in GNOME, but looking at the number of patches I > believe there are - they are only not being accepted. > So yes, I know the number of bug reports is huge, but *please*, bugs > with patches should have a strong priority. > > -Samuel > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Markus Bertheau <twanger bluetwanger de>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part