Changes in bugs.maemo.org
Changes in bugs.maemo.org
Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org
2011-12-14 22:54 UTC
Hi,
Sure, Nokia may no longer be interested in Maemo 5, but there is the
CSSU. I think a good approach would be to direct people who want to
file reports against Maemo 5 to the CSSU and to tell them that if that
doesn't already include a fix for their problem, they should file a
bug report against the CSSU component.
Thanks,
Neal
Sure, Nokia may no longer be interested in Maemo 5, but there is the
CSSU. I think a good approach would be to direct people who want to
file reports against Maemo 5 to the CSSU and to tell them that if that
doesn't already include a fix for their problem, they should file a
bug report against the CSSU component.
Thanks,
Neal
Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org
2011-12-15 00:09 UTC
Hi Andre,
Thanks for posting to the ML and I think you're going in the right
direction here. But let's leave room for the community to discuss this a
bit if it wishes.
First, my opinion is that the criterion should be whether Nokia wishes to
support rather than actively develop Maemo. After all, we just had a
security update that fixed a reported bug. I agree that we shouldn't take
new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if Nokia plans to take no action on
them. But instead of concluding that it "seems" like Nokia is not
interested, why shouldn't we just ask them?
I understand your message as indicating Bugzilla will remain for CSSU and
for any other ongoing community project that requests it.
Rob
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Andre Klapper <aklapper@openismus.com>wrote:
> Yo!
>
> By the end of this year, I plan to close all those products in
> bugs.maemo.org for new bug entry that are in the classifications
> "Official Maemo applications" and "Official Maemo platform" as it seems
> that Nokia has not been very interested in this lately.
> The bugs.maemo.org frontpage will also reflect this:
> https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12517
>
> Only thing I am afraid of is that users will report to some random
> (still open) products just to get their reports submitted, however with
> the current low amount of incoming issues that sounds unlikely to become
> a problem. Plus there are always some folks that don't read (we received
> a few MeeGo/N950 reports in bugs.maemo.org though the frontpage clearly
> says where to go for this) but that's life.
>
> So from 2012 on bugs.maemo.org will exist only for reporting issues
> about the maemo.org website and its related services, plus for Maemo
> Extras (community applications).
>
> andre
> --
> Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
> http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ | http://www.openismus.com
>
>
>
Thanks for posting to the ML and I think you're going in the right
direction here. But let's leave room for the community to discuss this a
bit if it wishes.
First, my opinion is that the criterion should be whether Nokia wishes to
support rather than actively develop Maemo. After all, we just had a
security update that fixed a reported bug. I agree that we shouldn't take
new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if Nokia plans to take no action on
them. But instead of concluding that it "seems" like Nokia is not
interested, why shouldn't we just ask them?
I understand your message as indicating Bugzilla will remain for CSSU and
for any other ongoing community project that requests it.
Rob
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Andre Klapper <aklapper@openismus.com>wrote:
> Yo!
>
> By the end of this year, I plan to close all those products in
> bugs.maemo.org for new bug entry that are in the classifications
> "Official Maemo applications" and "Official Maemo platform" as it seems
> that Nokia has not been very interested in this lately.
> The bugs.maemo.org frontpage will also reflect this:
> https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12517
>
> Only thing I am afraid of is that users will report to some random
> (still open) products just to get their reports submitted, however with
> the current low amount of incoming issues that sounds unlikely to become
> a problem. Plus there are always some folks that don't read (we received
> a few MeeGo/N950 reports in bugs.maemo.org though the frontpage clearly
> says where to go for this) but that's life.
>
> So from 2012 on bugs.maemo.org will exist only for reporting issues
> about the maemo.org website and its related services, plus for Maemo
> Extras (community applications).
>
> andre
> --
> Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
> http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ | http://www.openismus.com
>
>
>
Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org
2011-12-15 21:35 UTC
On 14.12.2011 13:23, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Yo!
>
> By the end of this year, I plan to close all those products in
> bugs.maemo.org for new bug entry that are in the classifications
> "Official Maemo applications" and "Official Maemo platform" as it seems
> that Nokia has not been very interested in this lately.
> The bugs.maemo.org frontpage will also reflect this:
> https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12517
>
> Only thing I am afraid of is that users will report to some random
> (still open) products just to get their reports submitted, however with
> the current low amount of incoming issues that sounds unlikely to become
> a problem. Plus there are always some folks that don't read (we received
> a few MeeGo/N950 reports in bugs.maemo.org though the frontpage clearly
> says where to go for this) but that's life.
>
> So from 2012 on bugs.maemo.org will exist only for reporting issues
> about the maemo.org website and its related services, plus for Maemo
> Extras (community applications).
>
> andre
If the Nokia don't want to support their proprietary soft maybe we can
demand them to make it open?
Is it possible by law of some European countries to lodge action against
the Nokia for their stoppage of supporting their products and offer them
to conclude peaceful agreement on such basis (opening their propietary
soft for N900)?
> Yo!
>
> By the end of this year, I plan to close all those products in
> bugs.maemo.org for new bug entry that are in the classifications
> "Official Maemo applications" and "Official Maemo platform" as it seems
> that Nokia has not been very interested in this lately.
> The bugs.maemo.org frontpage will also reflect this:
> https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12517
>
> Only thing I am afraid of is that users will report to some random
> (still open) products just to get their reports submitted, however with
> the current low amount of incoming issues that sounds unlikely to become
> a problem. Plus there are always some folks that don't read (we received
> a few MeeGo/N950 reports in bugs.maemo.org though the frontpage clearly
> says where to go for this) but that's life.
>
> So from 2012 on bugs.maemo.org will exist only for reporting issues
> about the maemo.org website and its related services, plus for Maemo
> Extras (community applications).
>
> andre
If the Nokia don't want to support their proprietary soft maybe we can
demand them to make it open?
Is it possible by law of some European countries to lodge action against
the Nokia for their stoppage of supporting their products and offer them
to conclude peaceful agreement on such basis (opening their propietary
soft for N900)?
Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org
2011-12-16 16:29 UTC
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 23:54 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> Sure, Nokia may no longer be interested in Maemo 5, but there is the
> CSSU. I think a good approach would be to direct people who want to
> file reports against Maemo 5 to the CSSU and to tell them that if that
> doesn't already include a fix for their problem, they should file a
> bug report against the CSSU component.
I disagree as I doubt that CSSU folks really want to get all those
enhancement requests dumped into their product in bugs.maemo.org,
keeping very limited manpower in mind, plus missing knowledge of an
average reporter whether affected components are not closed source.
Did you talk to the CSSU folks about their opinion?
andre
--
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
> Sure, Nokia may no longer be interested in Maemo 5, but there is the
> CSSU. I think a good approach would be to direct people who want to
> file reports against Maemo 5 to the CSSU and to tell them that if that
> doesn't already include a fix for their problem, they should file a
> bug report against the CSSU component.
I disagree as I doubt that CSSU folks really want to get all those
enhancement requests dumped into their product in bugs.maemo.org,
keeping very limited manpower in mind, plus missing knowledge of an
average reporter whether affected components are not closed source.
Did you talk to the CSSU folks about their opinion?
andre
--
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org
2011-12-16 16:35 UTC
Hi Robert,
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 19:09 -0500, robert bauer wrote:
> Thanks for posting to the ML and I think you're going in the right
> direction here. But let's leave room for the community to discuss
> this a bit if it wishes.
Feedback is very welcome, that's why I dropped this a few weeks in
advance. :)
> First, my opinion is that the criterion should be whether Nokia wishes
> to support rather than actively develop Maemo. After all, we just had
> a security update that fixed a reported bug.
I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of wasted time of
bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part just to end
up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.
> I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if
> Nokia plans to take no action on them. But instead of concluding that
> it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask
> them?
A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I wouldn't know
who to ask).
> I understand your message as indicating Bugzilla will remain for CSSU
> and for any other ongoing community project that requests it.
Yes, that's my plan, as the workload for incoming Extras reports (like
CSSU reports) and general administration is rather small and could be
continued in freetime by volunteers.
andre
--
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 19:09 -0500, robert bauer wrote:
> Thanks for posting to the ML and I think you're going in the right
> direction here. But let's leave room for the community to discuss
> this a bit if it wishes.
Feedback is very welcome, that's why I dropped this a few weeks in
advance. :)
> First, my opinion is that the criterion should be whether Nokia wishes
> to support rather than actively develop Maemo. After all, we just had
> a security update that fixed a reported bug.
I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of wasted time of
bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part just to end
up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.
> I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if
> Nokia plans to take no action on them. But instead of concluding that
> it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask
> them?
A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I wouldn't know
who to ask).
> I understand your message as indicating Bugzilla will remain for CSSU
> and for any other ongoing community project that requests it.
Yes, that's my plan, as the workload for incoming Extras reports (like
CSSU reports) and general administration is rather small and could be
continued in freetime by volunteers.
andre
--
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org
2011-12-16 16:40 UTC
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 21:35 +0000, James Brown wrote:
> If the Nokia don't want to support their proprietary soft maybe we can
> demand them to make it open?
This has been discussed several times before on Maemo mailing lists,
bugs.maemo.org and talk.maemo.org and I don't see any advantages (or
potential new arguments) by discussing it again.
I assume that http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=784443&postcount=32
still describes it well.
andre
--
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
> If the Nokia don't want to support their proprietary soft maybe we can
> demand them to make it open?
This has been discussed several times before on Maemo mailing lists,
bugs.maemo.org and talk.maemo.org and I don't see any advantages (or
potential new arguments) by discussing it again.
I assume that http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=784443&postcount=32
still describes it well.
andre
--
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org
2011-12-19 12:06 UTC
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Andre Klapper <aklapper@openismus.com>wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 19:09 -0500, robert bauer wrote:
> > Thanks for posting to the ML and I think you're going in the right
> > direction here. But let's leave room for the community to discuss
> > this a bit if it wishes.
>
> Feedback is very welcome, that's why I dropped this a few weeks in
> advance. :)
>
> > First, my opinion is that the criterion should be whether Nokia wishes
> > to support rather than actively develop Maemo. After all, we just had
> > a security update that fixed a reported bug.
>
> I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of wasted time of
> bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part just to end
> up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.
>
Understood. But the operating efficiency of bugzilla is not the only
consideration here. We could make it harder for internal supporters of
maemo within Nokia to obtain funding and other benefits for the community.
>
> > I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if
> > Nokia plans to take no action on them. But instead of concluding that
> > it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask
> > them?
>
> A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I wouldn't know
> who to ask).
>
I have. But it's probably going to take more than a few weeks because of
the holidays and Nokia is responding slowly these days regarding maemo. So
please wait to take action based on an affirmative decision rather than
based on inaction (even though a few weeks is ordinarily enough time).
> Rob
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 19:09 -0500, robert bauer wrote:
> > Thanks for posting to the ML and I think you're going in the right
> > direction here. But let's leave room for the community to discuss
> > this a bit if it wishes.
>
> Feedback is very welcome, that's why I dropped this a few weeks in
> advance. :)
>
> > First, my opinion is that the criterion should be whether Nokia wishes
> > to support rather than actively develop Maemo. After all, we just had
> > a security update that fixed a reported bug.
>
> I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of wasted time of
> bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part just to end
> up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.
>
Understood. But the operating efficiency of bugzilla is not the only
consideration here. We could make it harder for internal supporters of
maemo within Nokia to obtain funding and other benefits for the community.
>
> > I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if
> > Nokia plans to take no action on them. But instead of concluding that
> > it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask
> > them?
>
> A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I wouldn't know
> who to ask).
>
I have. But it's probably going to take more than a few weeks because of
the holidays and Nokia is responding slowly these days regarding maemo. So
please wait to take action based on an affirmative decision rather than
based on inaction (even though a few weeks is ordinarily enough time).
> Rob
Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org
2011-12-19 12:29 UTC
Hi,
On 19.12.2011 14:06, ext robert bauer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Andre Klapper
> <aklapper@openismus.com <mailto:aklapper@openismus.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of wasted
> time of
> bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part just
> to end
> up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.
>
> Understood. But the operating efficiency of bugzilla is not the only
> consideration here. We could make it harder for internal supporters
> of maemo within Nokia to obtain funding and other benefits for the
> community.
With the current MeeGo operations being ramped down during the next year
and the existing team focusing completely on getting the next N9
software updates finished, there really is no chance of getting any work
done for the N900 any longer. So, keeping the Bugzilla components just
gives false hope. Better to close them for new submissions.
The story is different for the N9 bugs filed at harmattan-bugs.nokia.com
- these still receive active attention, and I warmly recommend reporting
any issues found.
> > I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if
> > Nokia plans to take no action on them. But instead of concluding that
> > it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask
> > them?
>
> A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I wouldn't know
> who to ask).
>
> I have. But it's probably going to take more than a few weeks because
> of the holidays and Nokia is responding slowly these days regarding
> maemo. So please wait to take action based on an affirmative decision
> rather than based on inaction (even though a few weeks is ordinarily
> enough time).
Here's your answer. :-)
Cheers,
ma.
On 19.12.2011 14:06, ext robert bauer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Andre Klapper
> <aklapper@openismus.com <mailto:aklapper@openismus.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of wasted
> time of
> bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part just
> to end
> up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.
>
> Understood. But the operating efficiency of bugzilla is not the only
> consideration here. We could make it harder for internal supporters
> of maemo within Nokia to obtain funding and other benefits for the
> community.
With the current MeeGo operations being ramped down during the next year
and the existing team focusing completely on getting the next N9
software updates finished, there really is no chance of getting any work
done for the N900 any longer. So, keeping the Bugzilla components just
gives false hope. Better to close them for new submissions.
The story is different for the N9 bugs filed at harmattan-bugs.nokia.com
- these still receive active attention, and I warmly recommend reporting
any issues found.
> > I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if
> > Nokia plans to take no action on them. But instead of concluding that
> > it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask
> > them?
>
> A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I wouldn't know
> who to ask).
>
> I have. But it's probably going to take more than a few weeks because
> of the holidays and Nokia is responding slowly these days regarding
> maemo. So please wait to take action based on an affirmative decision
> rather than based on inaction (even though a few weeks is ordinarily
> enough time).
Here's your answer. :-)
Cheers,
ma.
Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org
2012-01-02 11:25 UTC
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 14:23 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> By the end of this year, I plan to close all those products in
> bugs.maemo.org for new bug entry that are in the classifications
> "Official Maemo applications" and "Official Maemo platform" as it seems
> that Nokia has not been very interested in this lately.
> The bugs.maemo.org frontpage will also reflect this:
> https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12517
>
> So from 2012 on bugs.maemo.org will exist only for reporting issues
> about the maemo.org website and its related services, plus for Maemo
> Extras (community applications).
This has been done now.
andre
--
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
> By the end of this year, I plan to close all those products in
> bugs.maemo.org for new bug entry that are in the classifications
> "Official Maemo applications" and "Official Maemo platform" as it seems
> that Nokia has not been very interested in this lately.
> The bugs.maemo.org frontpage will also reflect this:
> https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12517
>
> So from 2012 on bugs.maemo.org will exist only for reporting issues
> about the maemo.org website and its related services, plus for Maemo
> Extras (community applications).
This has been done now.
andre
--
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
By the end of this year, I plan to close all those products in
bugs.maemo.org for new bug entry that are in the classifications
"Official Maemo applications" and "Official Maemo platform" as it seems
that Nokia has not been very interested in this lately.
The bugs.maemo.org frontpage will also reflect this:
https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12517
Only thing I am afraid of is that users will report to some random
(still open) products just to get their reports submitted, however with
the current low amount of incoming issues that sounds unlikely to become
a problem. Plus there are always some folks that don't read (we received
a few MeeGo/N950 reports in bugs.maemo.org though the frontpage clearly
says where to go for this) but that's life.
So from 2012 on bugs.maemo.org will exist only for reporting issues
about the maemo.org website and its related services, plus for Maemo
Extras (community applications).
andre
--
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ | http://www.openismus.com