Re: [Nautilus-list] the great nautilus bughunt begins!

[David Fallon <davef tetsubo com>]

On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 21:12, Alex Larsson wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2002, David Fallon wrote:
> > Code cleanups:
> > These are bugs that have to deal with various cleanups in the code or
> > duplicates of FIXMEs in the code. I would really appreciate a developer
> > going through these real quick and addressing first, if they're still
> > relevant, and second, if they still care.
> 
> When eazel was around they had a principle that every FIXME in the code 
> had to have a bug in the bugtracker. I'm not sure what I think about this 
> principle, but right now we don't have resources enough to do this for all 
> new FIXMEs. I'm unsure whether we want to close the ones that are in there 
> though. Perhaps the ones that don't contain any information except the 
> location of the FIXME.
> 
> Reviewing the FIXMEs takes some time though, as you have to read the code 
> around them to understand the issues, and I'm not sure if that is a great 
> way to spend our time right before the Gnome 2 release. On the other hand 
> we need to get bugzilla under control... Ahhh. So many things to do...
> 
> I'm not sure that mailing the list like this is the perfect way. Am 
> i supposed to comment in my reply to the mail or should I add stuff to the 
> bugs? If i reply on the list it means information gets "lost" from the bug.

That's a good point, and one I'm not sure about. After some thought, and
seeing people's general response (being overwhelmed), it might be better
if I start bringing up specific bugs for discussion with people, and
then the discussion occur on b.g.o. 
 
> > * Missing check for pam-devel
> > 47112: code cleanup, probably resolved. check with folks.
> 
> Doesn't seem to be fixed. May break compilation on platforms without pam. 
> Should probably be fixed.

This is the only one that seems important to fix for the gnome2 stuff,
and is probably a relatively minor fix. Anyone volunteering?

> Hmmm. At this point I got tired of looking at the bugs, so i just glazed 
> over the rest. Many of these bugs are regular bugs that should be fixed. 
> They're just not highly priorotized right now.
> 
> Right now, the best way to help is to find the bugs that relate to 
> nautilus 2, and are critically important to fix before we release Gnome 2. 
> The idea is to move all these bugs to the 1.1.x milestone so that we can 
> get a feel for what *has* to be done. And any bug that is clearly nautilus 
> 1 only can be closed unless it is really really bad so that we need to 
> release a new 1.0.x version for it.

Can I get some clarity on what "must" be done for gnome 2.0? Just 2.0
crash bugs? That gets followed by valid bugs in general (for non-crash
valid bugs, there's a lot of overlap between 1.x and 2.x), and then
feature requests? My #1 goal here, of course, is to help... so getting
some more info on how I can modify my approach to achieve that would be
great.

Also, everyone out there who always wanted to get started coding, but
never knew where to start, please email me - there are a lot of really
simple or straightforward bugs that make perfect intros, and I pledge to
hang in there with you until you get that patch accepted. :)

-- 

dave