[PD-dev] [ pure-data-Bugs-2004979 ] hid defaults to debugging (flood of "hid_get_events")

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jul 8, 2008, at 10:43 PM, yves degoyon wrote:

> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 29, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hallo,
>>> Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 29, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Though there is a larger question lurking here: What should  
>>>>> trunk be
>>>>> and how should bug reporters check, if a bug may be already
>>>>> fixed? Or
>>>>> in short: What is the reference repository: some branches or the
>>>>> trunk? To me, trunk was that reference version (and for the
>>>>> record: to
>>>>> me it is for bug reports regarding my stuff, unless the reports  
>>>>> are
>>>>> branch-specific). But if you regard pd-extended branches as
>>>>> reference
>>>>> for your externals, I'll take note of that for future reports.
>>>>>
>>>> Trunk is the reference, but during a release cycle, I am following
>>>> the practice laid out by a number of other projects of focusing all
>>>> my work on the release branch.  Then once the release is done, I'll
>>>> merge those changes into trunk.  Otherwise, it is a lot of work
>>>> maintaining changes in two branches at the same time.
>>>>
>>> That's perfectly fine. Maybe I should rephrase the question to: When
>>> to close bugs?
>>>
>>> If I encounter a bug, I first update my checkout to the latest  
>>> version
>>> of the trunk, recompile, and if the bug still is there, I go to the
>>> bug report page and look, if there is an open bug report  
>>> regarding it.
>>> Mabye I'll also search the mailing list. In this case I didn't  
>>> find a
>>> bug report, and in the archive I saw you asking for a report. So  
>>> I sat
>>> down and wrote one. It was closed some minutes later because  
>>> there is
>>> a branch that doesn't have the bug anymore.
>>>
>>> Now someone else may come along, do the same thing as I did, but now
>>> there is no open bug report anymore so she may go through the same
>>> procedure again.
>>>
>>> Anyway, no need to further pursue this issue in this petty case, but
>>> in general I'd prefer if bug reports would stay open until they are
>>> fixed in the main branch i.e. the trunk to avoid duplicate reports.
>>>
>> Bug reports should be closed when they don't need any more
>> attention.
>
> gosh, this is 'wooden tong' talk
> frank is perfectly right to ask what is the reference branch,
> where, when thing will be fixed,
> it's not a game of playing with bug report status,
> is where i could find the right version? punto, coma, punto y punto
>
> don't ignore this please,
> i think it's contributing in the overall confusion
>
> i worked in sofware management too,
> and every bug should be closed as 'fixed in version 0.xx an up'
> nothing more,
> so you don't work that way?
>
> ya'llah
> sevy


Perhaps what I propose isn't the best idea.  But it takes less work,  
from what I can see.  I am quite overloaded in terms of Pd work so I  
can't always pay attention to the details.  And answering lots of  
emails with criticism is largely a time sync unless people are going  
to actually propose something better and not just say what I am doing  
is bad.

Coming up with a workable plan is where the real work is.  I would  
happily follow someone else's plan if they spend the time to consider  
all of the issues and then keep working on it and documenting it as  
it is implemented.

.hc

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

                             kill your television


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20080710/60d83fc7/attachment.htm>