6:47 a.m.
Hi!
Just FYI
On 28.10.2008 07:00, RPM Fusion Bugzilla wrote:
> http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
>
> Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC|
|fedora(a)leemhuis.info
> AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |fedora(a)leemhuis.info
> |review(a)rpmfusion.org |
Just FYI, I removed rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org (and hence
this list) from the bugs 2, 3 and 4, as that account is the default
owner for all review requests. Hence if something changes we'll get a
mail to this list anyway and the mails from bugs 2, 3 and 4 thus were
just redundant.
Note that I added rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org to some open
review bugs again to make sure the comments in the lists get send to the
list (¹), as decided some time ago. Once the bugzilla traffic gets to
much we can move it to a separate list, but I would prefer to not do
that, as review bugs with the current scheme get a lot more attention by
contributors and are in general more visible.
CU
knurd
(¹) reminder: if you do a review then reassign the bug to yourself and
add rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org to the CC list. That way it's
obvious who's doing the review and the lists still is in the loop
11:22 a.m.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
Hi!
Just FYI
On 28.10.2008 07:00, RPM Fusion Bugzilla wrote:
> > http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
> >
> > Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> changed:
> >
> > What |Removed |Added
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > CC| |fedora(a)leemhuis.info
> > AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |fedora(a)leemhuis.info
> > |review(a)rpmfusion.org |
Just FYI, I removed rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org (and hence
this list) from the bugs 2, 3 and 4, as that account is the default
owner for all review requests. Hence if something changes we'll get a
mail to this list anyway and the mails from bugs 2, 3 and 4 thus were
just redundant.
Note that I added rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org to some open
review bugs again to make sure the comments in the lists get send to the
list (¹), as decided some time ago. Once the bugzilla traffic gets to
much we can move it to a separate list, but I would prefer to not do
that, as review bugs with the current scheme get a lot more attention by
contributors and are in general more visible.
I'm afraid to be disagree with this decision.
By contribute to the RPM Fusion packaging side, contributors
approve to receive notifications about packages status (including new
package review) into RPM Fusion project .
If you won't receive a lot of mails then add filters or remove
yourself from the list.
Even if RPM Fusion isn't a huge project, do (preventing) thing at the
start is better than react on an overloaded or outage state.
(¹) reminder: if you do a review then reassign the bug to yourself and
add rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org to the CC list.
-1
the best way would be to the reporter to add to the CC the ML to notify
RPM Fusion contributors there's a review request running.
--
Xavier.t Lamien
--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien
GPG-Key ID: F3903DEB
Fingerprint: 0F2A 7A17 0F1B 82EE FCBF 1F51 76B7 A28D F390 3DEB
11:30 a.m.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Xavier Lamien wrote:
I'm afraid to be disagree with this decision.
By contribute to the RPM Fusion packaging side, contributors
approve to receive notifications about packages status (including new
package review) into RPM Fusion project .
Really? I do not remember this ever being part of the signup procedure.
If you won't receive a lot of mails then add filters or remove
yourself from the list.
Even if RPM Fusion isn't a huge project, do (preventing) thing at the
start is better than react on an overloaded or outage state.
See it from a different angle: If the "uninteresting" mail is becoming too
much, people will act and install a filter.
Then they'll never see any of the "uninteresting" mail again.
If the mail is below the "gahhhhh"-threshold, people will still read it,
maybe delete it manually but notice it and might be spurred into action
when they see an interesting mail...
So in the interest of motivating people, they should not feel annoyed
enough by a mailinglist to block it outright...
regards,
andreas
11:35 a.m.
New subject: Reducing bugzilla messages a little bit
On 28.10.2008 12:22, Xavier Lamien wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis
<fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
> On 28.10.2008 07:00, RPM Fusion Bugzilla wrote:
>>> http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
>>>
>>> Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> changed:
>>>
>>> What |Removed |Added
>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> CC| |fedora(a)leemhuis.info
>>> AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |fedora(a)leemhuis.info
>>> |review(a)rpmfusion.org |
> Just FYI, I removed rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org (and hence
> this list) from the bugs 2, 3 and 4, as that account is the default
> owner for all review requests. Hence if something changes we'll get a
> mail to this list anyway and the mails from bugs 2, 3 and 4 thus were
> just redundant.
>
> Note that I added rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org to some open
> review bugs again to make sure the comments in the lists get send to the
> list (¹), as decided some time ago. Once the bugzilla traffic gets to
> much we can move it to a separate list, but I would prefer to not do
> that, as review bugs with the current scheme get a lot more attention by
> contributors and are in general more visible.
I'm afraid to be disagree with this decision.
By contribute to the RPM Fusion packaging side, contributors
approve to receive notifications about packages status (including new
package review) into RPM Fusion project .
They still get the same information from the review bug itself; so only
one mail in the future instead of three (like in the past). That is a
improvement without any downsides imho.
> (¹) reminder: if you do a review then reassign the bug to
yourself and
> add rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org to the CC list.
-1
the best way would be to the reporter to add to the CC the ML to notify
RPM Fusion contributors there's a review request running.
Then it's not clear who actually does the review -- just look at bug 67
and tell me who the reviewer is. Assigning the bug to the reviewer will
make it obvious (even if there are hundred comments in the bug) and is
something a lot of people already do.
And there is nothing lost, as the mailing list is still in the loop. And
sure, now and them somebody will accidentally remove the list (just like
that has happened in the past); that's no big problem, as everybody sees
that on the list and thus can add the lists again within seconds.
CU
knurd
11:43 a.m.
New subject: Reducing bugzilla messages a little bit
On 28.10.2008 12:30, Andreas Thienemann wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Xavier Lamien wrote:
> If you won't receive a lot of mails then add filters or remove
> yourself from the list.
> Even if RPM Fusion isn't a huge project, do (preventing) thing at the
> start is better than react on an overloaded or outage state.
See it from a different angle: If the "uninteresting" mail is becoming too
much, people will act and install a filter.
Then they'll never see any of the "uninteresting" mail again.
If the mail is below the "gahhhhh"-threshold, people will still read it,
maybe delete it manually but notice it and might be spurred into action
when they see an interesting mail...
So in the interest of motivating people, they should not feel annoyed
enough by a mailinglist to block it outright...
Strong +1 to that
The information from the tracker bug really were is redundant with the
informations that the lists gets from the review bug itself already.
Hence I removed the lists from the tracker bugs. But if people really
want to we can add the list to the tracker bugs again within seconds.
CU
knurd
5652
days inactive
5652
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andreas Thienemann -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Xavier Lamien