Hi,

Branko Collin wrote:

However, anyone who uses a pre-compiled build cannot know beforehand what part of the bugs are build related, and what part GIMP related. Especially MS Windows users, who may not (and should not!) have a concept of build versus source distribution to begin with, may find it difficult to make the distinction.

Would it be useful to devise a system in which all users can file GIMP related bug reports, whether they have bearing only on the build they are using or on all of the GIMP?

I definitely agree with that.

The correct thing to do with bugs reported against the installer is, IMHO, to add jernej as a CC, set the component to Win32, and then leave it alone, and open. That way, Jernej can use our bug tracker, perhaps teach us a thing or two about windows along the way, and neither he nor our windows users feel like they aren't considered good enough to be in the GIMP crowd.

Jernej's installers are a great service, and if we don't want him to stop (and I know I don't), and bit more tolerance is called for. Currently, we don't even tell people how they should report bugs against the installer, the bugs are just closed NOTGNOME.

Of course, this would put the burden of triage on the GIMP developers who are currently doing that, but it might avoid reporters being scared away by curt WONTFIX replies.

These bugs are already being triaged as RESOLVED NOTGNOME. Changing the component, adding a CC and leaving the bug open takes as much time, and is a lot friendlier.

Cheers,
Dave.

Dave Neary (dneary@free.fr) wrote:

Jernej's installers are a great service, and if we don't want him to stop (and I know I don't), and bit more tolerance is called for. Currently, we don't even tell people how they should report bugs against the installer, the bugs are just closed NOTGNOME.

What about a component "installers" or "binary packages" where we can put the bugs that are related to a certain gimp distribution?

From time to time we'd have to clean it up so that the bug count doesn't

get out of control, but IMHO bugzilla might very well be the place to track these kind of external bugs.

Bye, Simon

Hi,

"Branko Collin" writes:

Of course, this would put the burden of triage on the GIMP developers who are currently doing that, but it might avoid reporters being scared away by curt WONTFIX replies.

The reply is NOTGNOME and we usually ask the bug reporter to get in contact with Jernej or whoever built the binary package and report the problem there. IMO it's up to Jernej or whoever builds the binaries to setup a bug-tracker for it and to inform users that build problems should be reported there. That's what all other packagers of GIMP do as well. It certainly doesn't belong into GNOME Bugzilla.

Sven

Hi,

Simon Budig wrote:

What about a component "installers" or "binary packages" where we can put the bugs that are related to a certain gimp distribution?

Sure, I could do this. I'll wait to see what the feedback on this thread is first.

Dave.

Hi,

Sven Neumann wrote:

"Branko Collin" writes:

Of course, this would put the burden of triage on the GIMP developers who are currently doing that, but it might avoid reporters being scared away by curt WONTFIX replies.

The reply is NOTGNOME and we usually ask the bug reporter to get in contact with Jernej or whoever built the binary package and report the problem there.

By "we", you mean "I", don't you? And today that hasn't happened at least once, the reply was simply "Your bug report is about the installer then and thus does not belong into this bug-tracker".

IMO it's up to Jernej or whoever builds the binaries to setup a bug-tracker for it and to inform users that build problems should be reported there. That's what all other packagers of GIMP do as well. It certainly doesn't belong into GNOME Bugzilla.

"All the other packagers of the GIMP" make money from it, and employ people to do this type of thing, and have dedicated machines. Jernej makes binaries in his spare time, and the least we could do is show a little tolerance on this issue.

I don't see why bugs like these certainly don't beling in GNOME Bugzilla. It would be nice if you could explain why this is so obviously true.

Cheers, Dave.

Hi,

Dave Neary writes:

By "we", you mean "I", don't you? And today that hasn't happened at least once, the reply was simply "Your bug report is about the installer then and thus does not belong into this bug-tracker".

Well, I knew that I was dealing with Branko, who should know better. The response is different when innocent users hit bugzilla.

"All the other packagers of the GIMP" make money from it, and employ people to do this type of thing, and have dedicated machines. Jernej makes binaries in his spare time, and the least we could do is show a little tolerance on this issue.

I am not opposed against helping Jernej with this if he asks for help. But I don't see why he should be treated differently in the first place.

I don't see why bugs like these certainly don't beling in GNOME Bugzilla. It would be nice if you could explain why this is so obviously true.

Because we can't do anything about the bugs. Nobody but the packager can. The situation would be different if the tools used to build the binary packages would be in GNOME CVS. That would certainly qualify the project for also using the bug tracker. But as long as people build GIMP using proprietary scripts that they don't publish anywhere, I am going to show no tolerance towards them.

Sven

Dave Neary wrote:

Sven Neumann wrote:

"Branko Collin" writes:

Of course, this would put the burden of triage on the GIMP developers who are currently doing that, but it might avoid reporters being scared away by curt WONTFIX replies.

The reply is NOTGNOME and we usually ask the bug reporter to get in contact with Jernej or whoever built the binary package and report the problem there.

By "we", you mean "I", don't you? And today that hasn't happened at least once, the reply was simply "Your bug report is about the installer then and thus does not belong into this bug-tracker".

Well, you can't prevent anyone from reporting bugs, but the quality of the replies can be improved. Is it possible to have some kind of "canned replies" in bugzilla? So that when resolving a bug against e.g. the win32 installer as NOTGNOME, an explantory text is just one click away?

IMO it's up to Jernej or whoever builds the binaries to setup a bug-tracker for it and to inform users that build problems should be reported there. That's what all other packagers of GIMP do as well. It certainly doesn't belong into GNOME Bugzilla.

"All the other packagers of the GIMP" make money from it, and employ people to do this type of thing, and have dedicated machines. Jernej makes binaries in his spare time, and the least we could do is show a little tolerance on this issue.

I'm not sure if I agree or not, but I'd like to see some requirements tied to featuring installers in bugzilla. This isn't directed against anyone directly, but a clear set of rules should be created. Do you want e.g. WinGIMP or MacGIMP to use bugzilla.gnome.org? What about other Free win32 installers of GIMP?

I don't see why bugs like these certainly don't beling in GNOME Bugzilla. It would be nice if you could explain why this is so obviously true.

If you think that Sven wrongly resolved bugs as NOTGNOME, please list them. Then it would be possible to discuss the sepcific cases.

Michael

On Friday, May 7, 2004, 17:50:13, Sven Neumann wrote:

Because we can't do anything about the bugs. Nobody but the packager can. The situation would be different if the tools used to build the binary packages would be in GNOME CVS. That would certainly qualify the project for also using the bug tracker. But as long as people build GIMP using proprietary scripts that they don't publish anywhere, I am going to show no tolerance towards them.

Not sure about what kind of proprietary scripts are you talking about - the installer scripts were always available, though it depended a lot on my mood where I put them (in a separate zipfile, or together with the rest of sources). The setup compiler itself is free, too.

To compile Gimp, I use MinGW+MSys, with no special tools.

Hi Jernej,

Jernej Simon?i? wrote:

Not sure about what kind of proprietary scripts are you talking about - the installer scripts were always available...

I'm glad you joined the thread, because there's one question that hasn't been answered yet.

Would you like to have your installer's problems tracked in bugzilla? Or would you prefer us to refer the bug reporters to your page? If so, where should we send them?

Cheers, Dave.

On Friday, May 7, 2004, 20:59:14, David Neary wrote:

I'm glad you joined the thread, because there's one question that hasn't been answered yet.

I've been subscribed for a while, but haven't really posted much (and I just noticed that the last 2 messages I did send never arrived to the list due to my own stupidity).

Would you like to have your installer's problems tracked in bugzilla?

I wouldn't mind this at all.

Hi,

=?Windows-1250?Q?Jernej_Simon=E8i=E8?= writes:

Because we can't do anything about the bugs. Nobody but the packager can. The situation would be different if the tools used to build the binary packages would be in GNOME CVS. That would certainly qualify the project for also using the bug tracker. But as long as people build GIMP using proprietary scripts that they don't publish anywhere, I am going to show no tolerance towards them.

Not sure about what kind of proprietary scripts are you talking about - the installer scripts were always available, though it depended a lot on my mood where I put them (in a separate zipfile, or together with the rest of sources). The setup compiler itself is free, too.

To compile Gimp, I use MinGW+MSys, with no special tools.

I was under the impression that building a GIMP installer involved some black magic. After all there don't seem to be many people able to build GIMP from source on win32.

Perhaps the setup scripts should be kept in CVS then. Not sure if they belong to the GIMP source, probably not. But there could be a separate module.

Sven

On Friday, May 7, 2004, 22:59:14, Sven Neumann wrote:

I was under the impression that building a GIMP installer involved some black magic. After all there don't seem to be many people able to build GIMP from source on win32.

Once you have the mingw+MSys environment set up, building Gimp is just ./configure --prefix= && make. Getting GTK+ to compile is more challenging though (but I use precompiled GTK packages provided by Tor for now).

Right now, building the installer involves make install, then running the install script from the top install directory. Since the install builder has a command-line compiler, this could be automated, too...

Hi,

Simon Budig writes:

Dave Neary (dneary@free.fr) wrote:

Jernej's installers are a great service, and if we don't want him to stop (and I know I don't), and bit more tolerance is called for. Currently, we don't even tell people how they should report bugs against the installer, the bugs are just closed NOTGNOME.

What about a component "installers" or "binary packages" where we can put the bugs that are related to a certain gimp distribution?

If the maintainers of the "installers" or "binary packages" agree to watch bugzilla for their bugs then that's probably the best we can do.

Sven

Hi,

On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 01:49, Sven Neumann wrote:

Simon Budig writes:

What about a component "installers" or "binary packages" where we can put the bugs that are related to a certain gimp distribution?

If the maintainers of the "installers" or "binary packages" agree to watch bugzilla for their bugs then that's probably the best we can do.

This would be a prerequisite for tracking any installer related bugs in GNOME Bugzilla, imho.

Regards, Brix

Hi,

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 17:50, Sven Neumann wrote:

Because we can't do anything about the bugs. Nobody but the packager can. The situation would be different if the tools used to build the binary packages would be in GNOME CVS. That would certainly qualify the project for also using the bug tracker. But as long as people build GIMP using proprietary scripts that they don't publish anywhere, I am going to show no tolerance towards them.

This was also my main argument against tracking any 3rd party installers in GNOME Bugzilla. The GIMP developers have no way of fixing a bug even if they know how it should be done.

But seeing the waste amount of bugs filed primarily for win32 installers since we released 2.0.0 I am slowly starting to change my mind. Perhaps a '3rd party installer' or similar component should be added to the GIMP product. Bugs can then be re-assigned to that component instead of being resolved NOTGNOME.

At least I think we should try it out and see how it works out.

Regards, Brix

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:

Hi,

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 17:50, Sven Neumann wrote:

Because we can't do anything about the bugs. Nobody but the packager can. The situation would be different if the tools used to build the binary packages would be in GNOME CVS. That would certainly qualify the project for also using the bug tracker. But as long as people build GIMP using proprietary scripts that they don't publish anywhere, I am going to show no tolerance towards them.

This was also my main argument against tracking any 3rd party installers in GNOME Bugzilla. The GIMP developers have no way of fixing a bug even if they know how it should be done.

Maybe a requirement for tracking installers should be that the author has to create a comprehensive list of the components of the installer, including version numbers and the locations he got the components from. Additionally, a list of changes (installed files, registry keys, ...) done to the system could help, too.

But seeing the waste amount of bugs filed primarily for win32 installers since we released 2.0.0 I am slowly starting to change my mind. Perhaps a '3rd party installer' or similar component should be added to the GIMP product. Bugs can then be re-assigned to that component instead of being resolved NOTGNOME.

Um, don't you mix two things here? Of course, users who report bugs are using gimp binaries they got from somewhere. the huge amount of duplicated reports has other reasons.

IMHO, reporting bugs in bugzilla without checking for duplicates is too easy, maybe all similiar reports should be displayed one after another and the user should have to click a "next" button.

At least I think we should try it out and see how it works out.

I agree.

Michael

Hi,

On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 12:09, Michael Schumacher wrote:

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:

But seeing the waste amount of bugs filed primarily for win32 installers since we released 2.0.0 I am slowly starting to change my mind. Perhaps a '3rd party installer' or similar component should be added to the GIMP product. Bugs can then be re-assigned to that component instead of being resolved NOTGNOME.

Um, don't you mix two things here? Of course, users who report bugs are using gimp binaries they got from somewhere. the huge amount of duplicated reports has other reasons.

No, I am not referring to the amount of duplicate bug reports here. My concern is the huge number of non-linux users who take the time to report a bug (a duplicate bug, maybe, but still a bug) only to see that bug resolved as NOTGNOME and asked to contact the author of the 3rd party installer instead.

My concern is that these non-linux users will not contact the authort but instead leave with the assumption that the GIMP is a very non-friendly project - which of course is not desirable.

Regards, Brix

Hi,

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:

in GNOME Bugzilla. The GIMP developers have no way of fixing a bug even if they know how it should be done.

Personally I consider anyone who contributes their time to furthering the GIMP (including Jernej) a GIMP Developer.

But seeing the waste amount of bugs filed primarily for win32 installers since we released 2.0.0 I am slowly starting to change my mind. Perhaps a '3rd party installer' or similar component should be added to the GIMP product. Bugs can then be re-assigned to that component instead of being resolved NOTGNOME.

So - will I create the Windows-installer component with Jernej and the module owner?

Cheers,
Dave.