From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 20 13:11:54 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4E4EFAB for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:11:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eu1sys200aog115.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog115.obsmtp.com [207.126.144.139]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E9561335 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:11:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob115.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKUrRB/kg29Uey5jByrEhZhemlJ3h/s5Ur@postini.com; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:11:54 UTC Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id cc10so3656412wib.4 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:11:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:message-id:to:subject:reply-to :in-reply-to; bh=kW6X0cZL2/2epqd7TxISPCmMSO+hHYOhQp+qR7Tmmf0=; b=b3DEVleax2VYF//k2Dcv0QraBZBvEsexjAI0cCWviR78oJRESvfdqzz8LWlUgeOS06 /4WAfvcvT1HY8tNif9rXX9CAeZEtRYzk0DyN738sq4+xZj0Aggf/yhPWE65y5vQs0GZx JOY8enIO2nYKMH+cE87ZTpmwIP1vJpuy86BJd/tYfK5/IokxwrtUqZfQjKsEmu71HFfS FRiqx4gug0q3Tt6vWka6bXIzDX6wv3OFQoa0j9czGjdal8gFUaV4FNmZjp3BO5Hmd8Qh kFDeMdTVIN4fgJFYRm0op14lASTrRXjAkoTiuZygMGsNpumWZLM/BaI0rq5AXSR24JW2 FiBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmztLO4Tc4enWQpetRSR0Q8NfemoZU4d71+Ydjb0weVHCQK95IBw9eoJzSibmTNZD99G7OvCA7GYnh0kIt1IHqNne2H/gUo/vS5uedVV7AaKI0vTZtB4a13A6jZ8Brj+81PjM3+1WTgYBWtpEPChsaXxQPZdcpt/cTzFdRjPvaZBqGvGOA= X-Received: by 10.181.11.169 with SMTP id ej9mr7836364wid.13.1387545086648; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:11:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.181.11.169 with SMTP id ej9mr7836354wid.13.1387545086558; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk (mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk. [137.222.187.241]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x9sm2505235wjf.11.2013.12.20.05.11.24 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:11:25 -0800 (PST) Sender: Anton Shterenlikht Received: from mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.6) with ESMTP id rBKDBNER097339 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:11:23 GMT (envelope-from mexas@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk) Received: (from mexas@localhost) by mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.6/Submit) id rBKDBN5a097338; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:11:23 GMT (envelope-from mexas) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:11:25 -0800 (PST) From: Anton Shterenlikht Message-Id: <201312201311.rBKDBN5a097338@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> To: clutton@zoho.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing In-Reply-To: <1387544051.8658.68.camel@eva02.mbsd> X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: mexas@bris.ac.uk List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:11:54 -0000 >Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm > unsubscribing >From: clutton >To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: >> > > >> > >From: "Thomas Mueller" >> > > >> > >There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or >> > >what to quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly. >> > >> > I disagree. >> > I use only send-pr to send PRs. >> > I use sendmail. >> >> I disagree with you. For new users, send-pr is a fucking usability >> train wreck, and insufficiently well documented. Sendmail is legendary >> for its obtuse configuration. I suppose you should be proud of the fact >> you find these tools easy to use, but that does not mean you should >> dismiss others' concerns over how difficult some people find them. The >> fact many people find these tools very difficult to use is in fact kind >> of a big problem, and I'm glad something is being done about it with >> regard to the bugzilla system. I wouldn't have chosen bugzilla if it >> was up to me, but it's not up to me and it's sure to be a huge >> improvement over the system currently in place, so I'm grateful for the >> work being done. Hopefully the command line send-pr tool will also be >> replaced with something that actually provides a low-friction way for >> people with problem reports to contribute to the FreeBSD project. >> >> In conclusion, I agree with Thomas (though I much prefer fdm over mpop, >> personally), and believe that send-pr (or its replacement, whenever that >> happens) desperately needs some better documentation. I rather suspect >> that a lot of people with problems to report simply give up and leave us >> with no clue there's anything wrong. >> > >+1 >People wouldn't read the «Porters Handbook» because they want to make a >bug report. Category and Class are far away from obvious. > >Handbook said that the FreeBSD consists from src, ports, and docs. >The send-pr Category dropbox contains ports, bin, java, ia64, etc. It's >insane to put everything here. This is a minor issue. You could probably also remove severity and priority, and let committers reclassify as they see fit. Most bug report systems I used - GCC, kde, paraview, qt - present report submission forms which are too detailed, in my users' opinion. Sure these extra fields might help those dealing with the problem, who are ultimately the people designing these systems. Anyway, all this is trivia. The major issues are - not enough people dealing with PRs and PRs taking too long to be addressed. Anton