Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote:
At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to
discover and act upon them, i.e. bugging the maintainer, fixing them,
taking over the maintenance etc.

This part is problematic. Because it requires human action that can be seen as toxic by some.

> According to compose report from 20190811 [1], I guess it was ~570
> packages. How many of them had associated FTBFS BZs in "ASSIGNED" state
> and for which version of Fedora? This would be interesting statistics to
> know. My guess is that it was 100 BZs at most, but probably much lower
> number.

"for which version of Fedora" doesn't apply really. Most of the bugs were just "rawhide" since the latest rawhide -> 30 only happened partially.

The status data should be visible in Bugzilla, however no idea how to query them grammatically:

 - get CLOSED EOL bugzillas blocking the F30FTBFS tracker
 - fetch their previous state
         (this is visible in the bug, but no idea how to query it)

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux