lists at zopyx
Apr 11, 2006, 9:44 PM
Post #2 of 8
(2512 views)
Permalink
|
--On 11. April 2006 23:00:01 +0200 Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar
<crobbenhaar [at] web> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I feel there is a mismatch between the policies for the Zope collectors
> and
> the text on the entry page of these collectors, which seems to frustrate
> both
> users and the developers caring about the collectors.
I agree.
> are welcome; instead there seems to be a strict policy about submissions
> requiring:
>
> - patches must come with unit test proving the patch fixes some issue
"should come": untested code is basically broken (to cite Stefan Holek).
In addition a patch is more likely to be accepted by a supporter if is has
tests.
> - patches for new features must apply to the trunk
nothing to add, this is a common rule for Zope 2 and Zope 3
> - bug reports should at least include the traceback
nothing to add, asking a bunch of times back get the necessary information
to get even a clue about a problem is one the most of annoying thing when
dealing with bugreports
> - only supported combinations of python/zope are supported, and issues
> should be reproduceable with a stock Zope installation without add-ons
> ...
Bascially yes, but we also have an eye on the major frameworks like CMF &
Plone.
>
> All users violating the policy are told about their mistake very strictly
> by Andreas Jung then. However, none of these requirements are mentioned
> on the start page for the collector.
..basically because the collector is often misunderstood as discussion
board and helpdesk.
>
> Other projects do have such requirements stated in big letters on their
> bug trackers front page; these might even include to ask first on the
> relevant
> mailing list before reporting a bug.
> I think its better to tell people in advance that to have to tell them
> later
> that their bug report does not meet the checklist.
Nothing against a false bugreport as long as it is clear, understandable
and reasonable. But weird and incomplete bug reports have the best chance
to be ignored and rejected.
>
> Does anyone share my point of view the collector overview page should
> state
> the requirements explicitely? If yes, is there any interest that I try to
> formulate some alternative text for the front page (which would need to be
> polished by some native speaker)?
I would definitely appreciate that.
>
> P.S. apologies if I am on the wrong list - if so, has anyone pointers
> about a better
> place to post this?
zope-dev would have been better.
Andreas
|
