a request out of bugzilla
linux at codehelp.co.uk
Fri Aug 20 16:31:51 EDT 2004
On Friday 20 August 2004 8:52, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In closing a bug report on bugzilla
> (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150604), Derek Atkins asks
> > Thomas: can you please attempt to verify bugs against cvs before you
> > submit them?
> Really, probably, no. It's a bajillion times easier to report bugs
> against the released version. I do not have the resources to keep a
> running copy of the CVS head all the time, nor can I reasonably build
> it every time I need to verify a bug.
But this makes it more difficult for developers to use the bug reports to fix
It diverts the effort back onto the developers, which is kinda unwelcome. I'm
only helping out with one section, the main effort from the busier developers
is already spread pretty thin. It means that instead of fixing the bugs,
developers need to sift through old bugs - trying to find which ones still
need to be fixed by trying to reproduce them in CVS HEAD themselves.
Can't you use cron with a bash script?
Do that once a week? It won't take many resources to do this whilst you sleep.
The autogen bit only needs to be done once (see Derek's reply to my previous
message when I asked the same thing)
> Heck, this is one of the reasons for having regular releases. ;)
But, right now, there's a lot of work on the gnome2 branch that is still a
while from release. Until that's ready, the developer effort is split and
therefore releases will become less regular.
> I'm convincable, but it seems reasonable to me to verify bugs against
> the release, before reporting them, rather than needing to deal with
> the bleeding edge.
Yet the CVS is where the bug will be fixed and where the next release will be
> I am willing to make an effort in the future to
> see if they are fixed by source perusal as well if that is desired.
If the bug report has a decent amount of information such that you can
reproduce it in a release copy, reproducing it in a CVS build will be just as
simple. Far easier than grinding through the source trying to find the exact
function call. After all, the bug report will be in terms of which menu item
to click, not which source file is responsible for the active code.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/attachments/20040820/512cb1f5/attachment.bin
More information about the gnucash-devel