Re: some thoughts about contributing to gnome

[Samuel Abels <newsgroups debain org>]

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
newbies.

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?
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163060 (epiphany)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140001 (gimp)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109035 (galeon)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139849 (epiphany)

Requires discussion (is there a keyword that can be used to mark such
bugs?) or requires a different fix then originally mentioned:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136912 (conglomerate)

Needs help:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135596 (gnome-panel)

I agree to comment #4 (implement or close - who takes a pick?):
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52026 (glib)

Comment #19 by Jody Goldberg, has this happened? Can the bug be closed?:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90932 (libgnomeui)

Not sure... does #1 mean this is already fixed?
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125457 (conglomerate)

Status requested:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75989 (libgnomeui)

If this should still be done, someone should deny the last comment:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45436 (nautilus)

Unclear whether it is still valid:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61269 (nautilus)

Patch:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111763 (gnome-applets)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159084 (gthumb)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79326 (gnome-terminal)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47054 (nautilus)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170364 (gnome-terminal)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155948 (gtk+)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115732 (epiphany)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170659 (gnome-applets)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150926 (gnome-applets)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86569  (nautilus)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52772 (glib)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88585 (nautilus)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155854 (gnome-print)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125226 (gnome-panel)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77108 (gnome-applets)

Patch, target was 2.8:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101281 (gedit)

Patch/Help needed:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62713 (nautilus)

Unclear, patch needs to be reviewed:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155487 (gedit)

Comment #4 made this a bit unclear for me; someone should probably
clarify what exactly the desired behaviour is in both case:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115037 (nautilus)

Should be commented (#5) or closed:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130220 (gtksourceview)

Patch, should be accepted or discussed:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145121 (gtk+)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123578 (gnome-panel)

The wording in the patch needs discussion; candidate for the usability
list?:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144585 (gnome-panel)

Still valid/already fixed?:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137539 (gedit)

A bit unclear what the right solution is:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95111 (gnome-session)

Requires discussion:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79189 (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.

-Samuel