don't use bug tasks for transitions

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi,

Am Samstag 31 Mai 2008 02:01:56 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:14:16 +0200 Stefan Potyra <sistpoty at ubuntu.com>
>
> wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >as overheard on #ubuntu-devel today, please don't use one bug with many
> >different tasks for transitions. The problem with this is, that any
> >subscriber of an affected package will get every mail for a change in that
> >bug (in short: [he/she'll get] "zillion mails" [in which he/she has] "no
> >interest in"[1]).
>
> I think this is an unfortunate aspect of the curent LP design.

Can you elaborate on this? (as Sebastien already noted on irc, one might be 
interested in comments to fixed bugs as well. So I personally don't see a 
design, which would fix this... of course I'd be happy to get good ideas on 
this).

>
> >For what tasks are not meant to be used, I'll give you this quotation: "if
>
> the
>
> >fixes required would be independent, they should be separate bugs" [2]
>
> I don't understand.  By definition all packages that need changes to fix a
> bug will be different.  If I understand this statement, then also affect
> should never be used for different packages.  This isn't what I would have
> expected.

Let me give two examples:
perl transition: you can upload each package individually, so these should be 
two different bugs.

OTOH, you might want to look at bug #59945 (which I wrongly never added a task 
for nvidia-settings). This was only fixed by updating both nvidia-settings 
and sensors-applet.
(sorry, you'll need to dig in the bug comments probably to find out the 
problem for this example.)

>
> >Finally, one option to handle transitions via LP was also proposed: "it's
> >easier to file [separate] bugs and tag those" [3].
>
> Tags have their own problems (see recent discussions on ubuntu-devel).  I'd
> say it's much harder.  One mass bug is one email.  One bug per package is
> one email per package.

The problem afaict is that mass bugs generate email, for each package, even if 
this package is already fixed. And yes, tags have their own problems. That's 
why I wrote that it could be one option. I'd be eager to hear what other 
solutions exist for this problem.

>
> I don't think LP currently offers a good solution for this type of problem.
This may very well be true ;).

Cheers,
   Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20080531/b7bb7bfa/attachment.pgp