Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 08:17:47 -0400 (EDT) From: jmonroy@email.com To: asmodai@wxs.nl Cc: doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unclearness of Re: docs/12487: ambigous reference Message-ID: <990703081747GF.11117@webc01.globecomm.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:53 PM 7/3/99 +0200, you wrote:
>[ Either this is Jesus or another monkey having found send-pr all of a
> sudden.
> Funny side-affect: most people who know me from RL of IRC know I tend
> to have a large amount of patience. But all this FreeBSD bashing from
> Jesus and others without adding constructive comments about how to change
> it is really making me tired. Now that's a first... [sic] ]
>
It's good to see you still have a
sense of humor. Yes, it really is me.
BTW, you should have three new PR. My hope
is people can lighten up. As for bashing,
I don't see that ending soon. Advocacy
has a real attitude, however, at least,
doc talks to people. Advoc talks at people.
'nuff politics.
>* thepinkpages@email.com (thepinkpages@email.com) [990702 22:47]:
>> From the previous message you'll see
>> that the reviewers(?) message was unclear.
>
>mpp's message was perfectly clear to me. He said that pr 12486 is like the
>one you submitted and whatever the outcome of that one, it will also cover
>this one.
>
Sorry, to report, if this was clear I
would have not asked. I am not asking to
start shit, you'll know when I'm starting
shit (after you know me a while); I asked
precisely because I did not know.
Further the last reponse, now posted
on freebsd-doc indicates the reviewer
does not intend to take the issue
seriously. You'll see I have.
The new PRs have scripts to reproduce
the errors and reproduce the fixes.
One of the problems is the the
remapping/renaming of certain utilities.
Although now I see the PRs have move.
I need sleep as well, so if you don't
mind I'll pick this up tommorrow.
>> Further, this message is less clear.
>
>You are right, this message you wrote is less clear.
>
>> Apparently, the PR has changed states,
>> as per the reviewer(?). However the
>> response document is unclear, terse
>> and confusing.
>
>The response is clear, precise and to point, not distracting from the issue
>and whatever information needed to get the point across (too bad about the
>typo though, but that's nitpicking).
>
>> Clearness can be accomplished by adding
>> "Severity" information from that
>> field. Additionally this information
>> should be noted in the reponse with
>> "State-Changed-Why"
>
>What good does adding the Severity subfield to the State-Changed-Why section
>do?
>
>The send-pr/GNATS system was developed for people who cared to consult the
>database so that they see what has been happening with the pr, and thus
>Severity is also shown when one queries the pr. Adding Severity [again] to
>the response only clutters the response with unrelated information which is
>clearly available from the GNATS database.
>
>> Terseness is address in the previous
>> paragraph. With conviction we state
>> that a pre-scribed answer should
>> suffice; with the caveout that this
>> does not cover all circumstances.
>>
>> Confusion could be removed by
>> adding a Natural Language interface
>> response system. That is to say,
>> the current response is a techincal
>> orthocratic response, which seems
>> clear for accounting/regression
>> testing purposes. However, an additional
>> field reponding in a native (English,
>> Japanese, Spanish, etc.) language
>> would be preferable.
>
>This is not the FreeBSD Helpdesk. Ask your questions on
>questions@freebsd.org. This database is intended for technical content and
>tracking of the problem with regard to the solution and fixes both sides
>try to create resulting from the problem submitted.
>
>> Possible Solutions:
>> Such a system would take all fields
>> modified and convert the information
>> into comprehensive and comprehendable
>> statement that could be review by
>> reviewer, thereby alliveating(sp?)
>> the reviewer, comitter, fixer and
>> reporter from miscommuncation because
>> of a lack of information,
>> or from miscommunication because of
>> an inconsitent response. The caveout
>> being that the system would be spending
>> MORE time in policy and review than
>> in human interaction, which is of
>> benefit to the entire process.
>
>Would you care to rephrase the above as I do not see what you are getting at.
>A very large amount of the pr's, I guess about 75%, gets evaluated correctly
>without miscommunication whatsoever. About 20% gets solved right away. The
>remaining 5% are either pilot errors, personal reminders, useless pr's and
>other cruft gathered.
>
>> Cost:
>> This type of system would demand a
>> person familar with a G5 language
>> or language of similar properties
>> (ie, Prolog, Dylan, Smalltalk).
>> Resource requirements are those
>> consumed by the needed interface(s).
>
>A survey from my Tk-GNATS on my locally synched freefall GNATS database
>shows that of the roughly 12700 pr's less than 1% is submitted erroneously.
>Clearly you are the first to state having problem with the system. This
>tends to make me think you just don't understand what it is for and how it
>is used. I kindly point you to the GNATS documentation which IIRC currently
>resides on sourceware.cygnus.com.
>
>Adding unnecessary bloat of using a G5 language into a tool designed for
>the tracking of problems submitted against a codebase is IMHO utter bollocks.
>
>> Benefits have been stated.
>
>I don't see any benefits from the above statements. Feel free to make more
>concise and clear statements and not some half thought out idea without
>proper consulting the available pr systems documentation out there.
>
>> My involvement:
>> As per above, the NL interface
>> could be accomplished. I am willing
>> to write, maintain and update such
>> a program. This would include documentaion,
>> web interfaces, database interface and
>> components needed for minimal use.
>> I prefer PROLOG.
>
>Documentation, web interfaces, database interfaces and components already
>exist, meet expectations or are in the prospect of being rewritten for new
>workflow systems tuned to BSD development models. I once again note that the
>pr system is NOT (that is NOT) intended for question related submissions.
>
>> Your involvement:
>> Should this seen a reasonable do-able
>> thing. Policy review must be set
>> down by someone other than myself.
>> The aforementioned revisions to
>> GNATS must be accomplished by someone
>> other than myself.
>
>Policy has indicated that GNATS is sufficient for current use. Work is
>underway to construct replacement programs.
>
>> Lastly, this would be an opportunity
>> to add other features. Your response
>> appreciated.
>
>With this my response, which is not the official status of the Project, but
>merely my rather intense involvement using the system and being aware of
>other likewise systems and their documentation.
>
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?990703081747GF.11117>