Hi Lex and all!

"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> I spent an hour or so yesterday trawling through BFAV, and so now I feel
> like a real user and have grounds to point out a, umm, missing feature.
> 
> Most of the things I see being unreviewed are things that very specific
> people *can* address or *should* address.  For example, if there is a
> bug in the MorphicWrappers package or the Comanche, then only the
> maintainer of that package can really address and close the bug.  I'm
> not sure that these people are always seeing the bugs at all.
> 
> Further, I'm not sure that *I* should be seeing them as a random BFAV reviewer.  It's truly mindnumbing to go through tons of bugs on
> packages that you don't know much about.
> 
> Along these lines, sometimes we do not have a maintainer when we
> probably should.
[SNIP]


Yes, and this is in fact why I thought and still think that TFNR is a
very important - though currently dormant - project.

We need to stake out the image and get those areas assigned to one or
several maintainers. And note - this does NOT mean that the staked out
parts need to be actually broken out of the image as a separate package.
But given a method or class we do need to know which package it belongs
to.

I am focused on SM right now so I will not rekindle TFNR until SM has
been moved one more step forward. But it would be just GREAT if someone
else could pick up the torch in the meantime.

And yes, perhaps I did fail with TFNR and should step down as a Guide as
a result, haven't decided yet.

> Here's a feature that could address these concerns:  attach *every* bug
> to some specific package.  That way, the appropriate people can see the
> message, because BFAV can automatically email the maintainer of the
> package.  Further, inapporpriate people can *avoid* seeing the message;
> unless I look at MorphicWrapper bugs I won't see them.  Note, by the
> way, that we can also have a "don't know" package to assign bugs when
> the user really doesn't know.  This is especially acceptible if it is
> possible to reassign bugs after they have been created.
> 
> Just a thought.  Your eyes do not deceive you, and there is no code
> attached to this email.  :)

Hrmph. ;-) ;-)

> Lex

regards, Göran