Re: some thoughts about contributing to gnome

[Samuel Abels <newsgroups debain org>]

Sorry, I forgot to mention: Please restrict answers to the
gnome-bugsquad list instead of following up on every list.

-Samuel

Am Dienstag, den 10.05.2005, 23:21 +0200 schrieb Samuel Abels:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Gnome-bugsquad mailing list
> Gnome-bugsquad gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad