magnus at therning.org
Thu Jul 7 07:25:08 UTC 2005
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:29:52AM +0200, Vincent Trouilliez wrote:
>> Vincent Trouilliez wrote:
>> > --
>> > Vince, not very impressed with Malone, and still don't know how the hell
>> > to attach his bloody screenshot...
>> Come on buddy, I've seen you on this list since Ubuntu first reared it's
>> head, surely you've reported these deficiencies to the upstream developers?
>Well, I doubt I can influence such a huge project.
>Also, I don't see anyway to file bugs on Malone itself.
>In Bugzilla it's straight forward, every time you file a new bug you
>have to select what the bug is about : Ubuntu or Bugzilla itself.
>But in Malone, you have to specify the distro first, then only the
>package name. Since Malone is not part of Ubuntu as such, well, it's not
>in the list... can't file bugs/wish-lists...
You can use this page:
Click on "File a bug". It's not that easy to find the page, Malone is a
_product_ so filing a bug on products is the first step. Then it seems
the searching is broken, so it's better to search for the exact package
using your browsers built-in search.
>Also, being able to easily upload attachement is such an obvious
>feature, that if it's not implemented, there must be a good reason,
>either it's hard to do , or they don't want to do it. Either way,
>airing my request is unlikely to get things moving.
>So I am rather pessimistic, sadly :-/
Oh, come one. This is a make-or-break feature for you, and I think quite
a few others. If they have a reason for not including it it must be a
damn good one, because they will lose bug reporters if it's not there.
File it, please!
A small note on my impressions of Malone so far. It seems to be a rather
confused part of Launchpad. As I've understood the goal of Launchpad
it's to become somewhat of a meta tool, an umbrella where
distro-specific tools can be accessed. As such I was expecting Malone to
be a meta-bugtracker, not a bugtracker in itself. What I was expecting
was a workflow along these lines (somewhat simplified):
1. I report bug in Malone on a Universe package
2. Malone reports the bug in Debian's bug tool
3. Bug is fixed/rejected by Debian developer
4. Debian's tool tells Malone about the fix/rejection
5. I'm told by Malone
The interfacing between Malone and Debian's bug tool is implemented as
a module, and after a while every bug tool under the sun has a Malone
module and one can then file bugs on every distro under the sun. That'd
be a cool tool indeed.
Instead the flow for me has been the following:
1. I report a bug in Malone on a Universe packge
2. I contact the Debian packager asking if he heard anything from
Malone, he says no and asks me to report the bug in Debian's bug
3. I report the bug in Debian's bug tool
4. Debian's bug tool reports the bug closed
5. I have no means of closing the bug in Malone
This was the flow for Malone bug 1109 (Debian bug 316043).
If Malone isn't a meta-bugtracker I don't see what it could contribute
beyond what bugzilla does...
Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus at therning.org
Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish.
Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship
by patent law on written works.
Linear improvements in compute power can't stand up to exponential
improvements in difficulty.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ubuntu-users