Needs Packaging bug reports

[Brian Murray]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:40:56PM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On Wednesday 11 February 2009 20:34:38 Brian Murray wrote:
> [..]
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:18:56PM -0800, Brian Murray wrote:
> > > > As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification[1]
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > Barring any objections I plan on running this on the Friday the 13th,
> > > > which will modify approximately 254 bug reports, and scheduling it to
> > > > run weekly thereafter.
> > >
> > > I strongly object to both the specification and the result of you
> > > running that script.
> >
> > I'm interested to hear and discuss your objections to both of these.
> 
> Sorry for not providing a rationale in the first place.

That's alright - thanks for taking the time to provide it!
 
> After reading the spec, I personally can't see any benefit in moving the 
> needs-packaging bugs around, but rather the drawback that documentation and 
> scripts (e.g. my personal completely messy script which tries to check wether 
> an upload fixes the right bugs - and hence has some heuristics for needs 
> packaging bugs as well) would be broken by that approach.

They aren't being moved at this point in time, that was the long term
goal but it is currently blocked on a Launchpad bug.  
 
> Furthermore, I also don't think that announcing most-wanted packages in forums 
> or blogs is necessarily a good thing.

There was some discussion about moving needs-packaging bug reports to
Brainstorm[1], partially because there is no way to gauge how many
people are interested in having a package.  The purpose of the
'most-wanted' packages report is to provide that gauge.  The
announcement part is a way of letting people know that the
'users_affected_count', activated by changing 'affectsmetoo', is
revealed / used somewhere.  Additionally, having people use
'affectsmetoo' is a better idea than having me too comments.  
 
> On one side, this goes back to the lengthy discussion wether to shift the 
> scope away from packaging new things for motu-hopefuls to fixing bugs.
> Additionally, this might create uncertainty to where to ask for packaging 
> reviews: During last? (or last but one?) feature freeze cycle, I've even seen  
> a FFe request for a package wich has only been discussed on the LP 
> needs-packaging bug (and which as a result had a number of beginner mistakes, 
> s.th. which I guess could have been sorted out much easier/earlier on with 
> revu).
> 
> Now, sorry, if I didn't understand it correctly, but if the script you intend 
> to run now only sets the priority to wishlist (and won't move bugs around), 
> then I don't object to this at all.

Yes, it will only set the priority to wishlist and prepend the bug title
with '[needs-packaging]', provided some approximation of that doesn't
already exist in the bug title, to make them easier to spot in bug lists.

[1]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-October/004854.html 

-- 
Brian Murray                                                 @ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20090213/f0295214/attachment.pgp