Re: Lilypond and distribution bugtrackers [was: LSR is not at the stable release level]

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:56:37PM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> On 10/03/2012 10:36 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> >We are not going to sign up bug-lilypond to receive notices
>> >automatically.  Most reports will not be useful, and they will
>> >screw up the automatic tools we use to keep track of whether
>> >reports have been dealt with or not.
>> 
>> I also don't think that the volume is ever going to be large enough
>> to be problematic.  If it _is_, then you have a different problem --
>> large numbers of bug reports that are not getting where they need
>> to.
>
> ok, so you won't mind volunteering to take care of this with your
> personal email account.
>
>> >If you think those notices are worthwhile, then *you* sign up to
>> >receive them, and send any good bug reports to bug-lilypond.
>> 
>> If I do this, and they _do_ prove useful, will you reconsider the
>> option of automated tracking?
>
> No.

I have thought for a long time about whether I should comment on this.
It is hard to argue with success, and Joseph did volunteer to get more
involved with the bug squad in response to this posting.

> You're being inconsistent.  At some point, any bug report needs to
> be evaluated by a human.  We have enough problems finding humans
> to look at the dedicated, high-quality bug reports sent to
> bug-lilypond.  If you don't think that looking for more bug
> reports will be a lot of work, then go ahead and do it yourself.
> If you *do* think that looking for bug reports will be a lot of
> work, then stop trying to foist that off onto other people.

I don't consider it really all that obvious not to monitor low-volume
channels with possibly relevant information.

However, it _does_ make sense if the monitoring is done by actual human
volunteers.  They can provide consistent feedback about _what_ to report
upstream.  They can refer users to our upstream mailing lists when their
problems are better dealt with there.

And, for better and worse, the _most_ important relevant information is
something that we won't notice by redirecting distribution mailing
lists.  It is the _absence_ of people reporting the availability of new
stable upstream versions, the _absence_ of announcements that upstream
versions have been dealt with, the _absence_ of relevant replies to
previous problem reports.

For supporting a particular distribution, those non-messages are
important to notice, and we won't notice them when redirecting
non-traffic on our standard lists.  For that, we really need people who
feel responsible for actively monitoring LilyPond on a particular
distribution.

-- 
David Kastrup