Re: [Koha-devel] Hacker's corner week 10
Paul, This is more than helpful! Very GOOD. I think we should indeed have a weekly mailing of bugs needing attention. Just a few additional remarks: An alinea with some statistics like you gave would be nice each time. Hopefully, the number of 150 needing signoff goes down (it was like 170). Pushed to close: imo they should be closed by the one who reported, wrote the patch or signed the patch, and not by someone else. Mentioning these bugs is not the first issue. Some abbreviations could be explained: blo=blocker for instance. Some of us would maybe like to add a few bug numbers for attention or discussion: would it be handy to open a page on the wiki for that purpose? To mention a few: discussion on 5572 (I mailed the list already, but no response yet). Discuss reopening 2173 (I would favor restoring OpacNav on detail screen). Etc. Etc. In order to keep drawing attention, the mail should not be too long of course. Marcel -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org [mailto:koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org] Namens Paul Poulain Verzonden: zaterdag 5 maart 2011 23:36 Aan: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Onderwerp: [Koha-devel] Hacker's corner week 10 Hello all, As announced during the last IRC meeting, i'll try to write a weekly summary about bugzilla/developer activity : bugs submitted, patches submitted,... Let me know if you find this handfull, if you'd like to see another information, i'll do my best to report what is interesting ! I'll try to announce usually : * what's new since last week * what's still waiting For this 1st mail, i'll concentrate on what's waiting. In one word: it's huge, *WE NEED YOU*. Just a few numbers = 102 bugs are "patch pushed" and are waiting for someone to close them after checking the bug or the feature is OK in master. 149 bugs are "waiting sign-off": remember Koha 3.4 should be released on late april, and it would be too bad if so many patches were not integrated just because they have not been signed-off by anyone ! I've added some links on http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bugzilla that will let you see the details of what's summarized in this mail. 1- bugs closed ========= 19 bugs were closed last week. 2- bugs pushed to close ============== There are 102 bugs that have a patch pushed and require someone to check and close the bug. The oldest is the 1883, and there are some critical ones, like the 5423, 5611, 4141, 4857, 5041, 5824. 3- bugs to sign-off =========== There are 149 bugs to sign-off. #2795 = The oldest is also a CRI one Offline circ tries to circ on biblio-level "itemtype" <http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=2975> #3624 = a BLO one ! a patch has been submitted to update the DB structure. Without this patch, the DB is inconsistent on update #5449 = another BLO one ! JSON malformed in Koha - Blocker with jQuery 1.4.x <http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5449> There are 7 CRI, that are waiting for someone to check = 2975, 3652, 4276, 4993, 5027, 5379, 5646. But the 149 are worth a check, of course. 4- to discuss ======== I also have found that those bugs should/could be discussed #5009 = Dobrica Pavlinusic <mailto:dpavlin@rot13.org> has submitted a patch to add autocomplete="off" to borrowernumbers and barcode forms Owen has closed the bug, I think it's worth more investigation. Please give your opinion ! #5390 = library choice not remaining when searching opac. Nicole E. ask an interesting question, jump in the discussion & send a patch if you've an idea! #5533 = marking item lost diff in two places, same thing, jump in the thread Nicole starts ! PS: (once again) congratulations to chris_c => i've searched for patches signed-off waiting (waiting to move to "pushed, pls test"). It's easy, there are only 3, 2 of them being only a few hours old, and probably not here anymore when you'll read this mail. HTH -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08 _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
On 7 March 2011 21:30, Marcel de Rooy <M.de.Rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> wrote:
Paul, This is more than helpful! Very GOOD. I think we should indeed have a weekly mailing of bugs needing attention. Just a few additional remarks:
An alinea with some statistics like you gave would be nice each time. Hopefully, the number of 150 needing signoff goes down (it was like 170). Pushed to close: imo they should be closed by the one who reported, wrote the patch or signed the patch, and not by someone else.
The one who reported would be ideal, the person who signed off ok if no one else will do it. But not the person who wrote the patch. Signing off your own patches, or closing bugs that you wrote the fix for means that no one independent has tested. As release manager I don't like this idea at all. Id rather a bug stay open, than have it closed by the person who wrote the fix.
Mentioning these bugs is not the first issue. Some abbreviations could be explained: blo=blocker for instance. Some of us would maybe like to add a few bug numbers for attention or discussion: would it be handy to open a page on the wiki for that purpose? To mention a few: discussion on 5572 (I mailed the list already, but no response yet). Discuss reopening 2173 (I would favor restoring OpacNav on detail screen). Etc. Etc.
Why not just reply to the mail with the bugs you want to highlight. Chris
Closing your own patches after they got pushed is not ideal, I agree right-away. Could we open a wiki page for some procedures on bug status changes? The wiki discussion idea is meant to contribute to the mail Paul will send each week. Just adding to that report will not always attract attention (or even mailing the list..) But other ways are fine too. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Chris Cormack [mailto:chris@bigballofwax.co.nz] Verzonden: maandag 7 maart 2011 09:35 Aan: Marcel de Rooy CC: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Onderwerp: Re: [Koha-devel] Hacker's corner week 10 On 7 March 2011 21:30, Marcel de Rooy <M.de.Rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> wrote:
Paul, This is more than helpful! Very GOOD. I think we should indeed have a weekly mailing of bugs needing attention. Just a few additional remarks:
An alinea with some statistics like you gave would be nice each time. Hopefully, the number of 150 needing signoff goes down (it was like 170). Pushed to close: imo they should be closed by the one who reported, wrote the patch or signed the patch, and not by someone else.
The one who reported would be ideal, the person who signed off ok if no one else will do it. But not the person who wrote the patch. Signing off your own patches, or closing bugs that you wrote the fix for means that no one independent has tested. As release manager I don't like this idea at all. Id rather a bug stay open, than have it closed by the person who wrote the fix.
Mentioning these bugs is not the first issue. Some abbreviations could be explained: blo=blocker for instance. Some of us would maybe like to add a few bug numbers for attention or discussion: would it be handy to open a page on the wiki for that purpose? To mention a few: discussion on 5572 (I mailed the list already, but no response yet). Discuss reopening 2173 (I would favor restoring OpacNav on detail screen). Etc. Etc.
Why not just reply to the mail with the bugs you want to highlight. Chris
Hi Marcel On 7 March 2011 21:46, Marcel de Rooy <M.de.Rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> wrote:
Closing your own patches after they got pushed is not ideal, I agree right-away. Could we open a wiki page for some procedures on bug status changes?
There is some info about it here http://koha-community.org/get-involved/for-developers/ But anyone can start a wiki page on anything, thats what wikis are for :)
The wiki discussion idea is meant to contribute to the mail Paul will send each week. Just adding to that report will not always attract attention (or even mailing the list..) But other ways are fine too.
Yep, I think replying to his mail is probably the easiest way. Chris
The one who reported would be ideal, the person who signed off ok if no one else will do it. But not the person who wrote the patch. Signing off your own patches, or closing bugs that you wrote the fix for means that no one independent has tested. As release manager I don't like this idea at all. Id rather a bug stay open, than have it closed by the person who wrote the fix. For us (BibLibre), patches we submit have been declared by our customer on our mantis support platform (in french) When we submit the patch, it has usually be already applied to the customer. I can't think, even a second, that our customers will declare
Le 07/03/2011 09:34, Chris Cormack a écrit : the bugs on bugzilla ! So it means for us most of the time the reporter is also the patcher. so the patcher/reporter will usually be the "marking fixed" ! -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
When we submit the patch, it has usually be already applied to the customer. I can't think, even a second, that our customers will declare the bugs on bugzilla ! So it means for us most of the time the reporter is also the patcher. so the patcher/reporter will usually be the "marking fixed" !
That's why it's so important to describe in bug reports what the problem is, how to reproduce it, and how to determine if it is fixed. That gives a third party the tools to test the patch and mark it as fixed. -- Owen -- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries http://www.myacpl.org
participants (4)
-
Chris Cormack -
Marcel de Rooy -
Owen Leonard -
Paul Poulain