WHAT. sending a list of "really major(TM)" issues that have been fixed in stable (2.16.x) in the last months. i plan to do this more often in the future (more or less combined with some showstopper review activities). WHY. currently it's very problematic to find out if upstream patches have really fixed an issue, because GNOME will still be flooded by downstream bug reports for that particular problem. we need better information flow between upstream and downstream. LIST. okay, distros that have a backport policy most likely want to make sure that they provide updated packages including these fixes: ========== 2006-10-30, nautilus: 1704 rejected traces on 2007-01-23, 2716 rejected traces on 2007-02-24. so this is still a HUGE problem. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=352592#c258 http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/nautilus/trunk/src/file-manager/fm-icon-view.c?r1=12557&r2=12556&pathrev=12557 ========== 2006-11-01, nautilus: 754 rejected traces on 2007-01-23, 1164 rejected traces on 2007-02-24. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356672#c113 ========== 2006-11-02, nautilus: 474 rejected traces on 2007-01-23, 694 rejected traces on 2007-02-24. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=348161#c101 ========== 2006-12-13, at-spi: 424 dups http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377079#c72 ========== 2007-01-06, control-center: 189 dups http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356435#c46 #c53 #c54 ========== 2007-01-11, nautilus: 236 dups http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=320020#c28 ========== 2007-01-17, epiphany [sic!]: 113 dups http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351814#c93 ========== 2007-01-22, gnome-terminal: 251 dups http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353498#c191 http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399282#c3 ========== 2007-01-24, gst-plugins-ugly: 349 dups http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=336370#c67 ========== 2007-02-11, gnome-system-tools: 359 dups http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356180#c136 http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=354536 http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/gnome-system-tools?view=rev&revision=3765 ========== 2007-02-24, gedit: 164 dups http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=354046#c184 http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/gedit?view=rev&revision=5511 FUTURE. i kindly ask backport-policy vendors/distros to add a short comment to the bugzilla.gnome.org report if/when a patch has been backported (HIGHLY appreciated), so it becomes easier to track whether a patch has fixed an issue or not. would be also great if this could be done for this email here, but i know that my list is looong... we cannot always "wait for the next major release", this is way too much workload for the bugsquad, and you also will not get content users by just sitting out the instability problems... so, is this approach welcome, or do i waste my time by duplicating efforts (means: do any backport-policy vendors already have some kind of tracker systems to identify and backport serious patches)? comments, improvements? three cheers from the golden city, andre -- mailto:ak-47 gmx net | failed! http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/portal/aklapper
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil