Bug tracking policy (was Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Trunk now Toolbuilderized)

Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de
Sat Aug 15 20:09:53 UTC 2009


On 15.08.2009, at 20:39, Frank Shearar wrote:

> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> On 14.08.2009, at 11:16, Frank Shearar wrote:
>>> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>>>>> I guess you misunderstood. Mantis is still where to report bugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if a core developer notices a small bug and can fix it  
>>>>>> right away,
>>>>>> he can just do so. Formerly, he would have to open a Mantis bug  
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> attach a changeset.
>>>>> Exactly this should be mandatory
>>>> This is a valid proposal. Who does support it? Who is against?
>>>
>>> I'd vote for mandatory reporting.
>> So if I notice a typo that was introduced yesterday, I'd not only  
>> fix it, but also I'd have to open a bug report and immediately  
>> resolve it? Just making sure I understand.
>
> Thinking more on the issue, and on my own workflow, here's what I  
> think:  if I'm the Foo package maintainer, and I noticed a typo bug  
> or something else minor, I'd just commit the change (with a decent  
> commit message).
>
> If someone else found a bug, I'd expect them to file a bug report,  
> possibly with a fix. The point of attaching the fix is to allow me  
> time to review the fix, maybe discuss the issue with the reporter,  
> and the like. This is where Mantis shines.
>
> This works well for a nicely separated package. I suppose Keith's  
> bugbear is not around this, but around everyone hacking in the big  
> lump of _unseparated_ packages?


Good points.

Problem is, we have neither well-separated and decoupled packages in  
the core, nor maintainers for them. We tried it a while ago, around  
the 3.9 time frame, when the image was first categorized into  
Monticello packages. Teams were created maintaining each package. It  
didn't work out.

Any idea how we could make such a model successful now?

- Bert -




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list