Re: some thoughts about contributing to gnome

Am Dienstag, den 10.05.2005, 20:55 +0200 schrieb Ronald S. Bultje:
> The problem is circular. We need more people to help us figure such
> stuff out, but in order to get those new people in, we need to spend
> more time on each of those parts, too.

I have been hacking on non-core GTK/GNOME applications for a while and
planned to get involved a bit into hunting bugzilla bugs a few months
ago. Here is my experience:

First I went through the (freshly created, back then) simple-bug list. I
estimate that at least 50% of the bugs were IMO marked "gnome-love"
falsely, because they either required discussion, required deep
knowledge about many components IMO, or already had a patch attached.
Some of that seemed to be the result of renaming "easy-fix" keyword,
which was sometimes used in situations that may not be too suited for

So today I went through the list again to find those bugs and write them
down. The situation seems to have improved quite since then, but I still
found plenty. Note that I was not picky to add something to the list and
if something was unclear that alone qualified a bug to appear here,
because I believe that especially gnome-love bugs should have a clear
description of what needs to be done:

Unclear. Requires discussion? (epiphany) (gimp) (galeon) (epiphany)

Requires discussion (is there a keyword that can be used to mark such
bugs?) or requires a different fix then originally mentioned: (conglomerate)

Needs help: (gnome-panel)

I agree to comment #4 (implement or close - who takes a pick?): (glib)

Comment #19 by Jody Goldberg, has this happened? Can the bug be closed?: (libgnomeui)

Not sure... does #1 mean this is already fixed? (conglomerate)

Status requested: (libgnomeui)

If this should still be done, someone should deny the last comment: (nautilus)

Unclear whether it is still valid: (nautilus)

Patch: (gnome-applets) (gthumb) (gnome-terminal) (nautilus) (gnome-terminal) (gtk+) (epiphany) (gnome-applets) (gnome-applets)  (nautilus) (glib) (nautilus) (gnome-print) (gnome-panel) (gnome-applets)

Patch, target was 2.8: (gedit)

Patch/Help needed: (nautilus)

Unclear, patch needs to be reviewed: (gedit)

Comment #4 made this a bit unclear for me; someone should probably
clarify what exactly the desired behaviour is in both case: (nautilus)

Should be commented (#5) or closed: (gtksourceview)

Patch, should be accepted or discussed: (gtk+) (gnome-panel)

The wording in the patch needs discussion; candidate for the usability
list?: (gnome-panel)

Still valid/already fixed?: (gedit)

A bit unclear what the right solution is: (gnome-session)

Requires discussion: (gnome-utils)

2. Patches are often not being reviewed. I submitted some 4 or 5
patches, only one very trivial patch of which was since reviewed (kudos
to the Gimp developers); this was > two months ago.

I am deliberately not pointing to those bugs to make clear that these
are not the intention of this email. Knowing that there are >600
unreviewed patches in bugzilla I am trying to point to the general
problem instead: Some people complain that there are no new developers
getting involved in GNOME, but looking at the number of patches I
believe there are - they are only not being accepted.
So yes, I know the number of bug reports is huge, but *please*, bugs
with patches should have a strong priority.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]