From owner-freebsd-doc Sat Jul 3 5:19:53 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from rmx11.iname.net (rmx11.iname.net [165.251.12.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FADF14E27 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 05:19:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmonroy@email.com) Received: from webc01.globecomm.net by rmx11.iname.net (8.9.1a/8.8.0) with ESMTP id IAA00900 From: jmonroy@email.com Received: (from nobody@localhost) by webc01.globecomm.net (8.9.1a/8.9.2.Alpha2) id IAA12117; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 08:17:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: webc01.globecomm.net: nobody set sender to jmonroy@email.com using -f MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <990703081747GF.11117@webc01.globecomm.net> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 08:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asmodai@wxs.nl Cc: doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unclearness of Re: docs/12487: ambigous reference Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 12:53 PM 7/3/99 +0200, you wrote: >[ Either this is Jesus or another monkey having found send-pr all of a > sudden. > Funny side-affect: most people who know me from RL of IRC know I tend > to have a large amount of patience. But all this FreeBSD bashing from > Jesus and others without adding constructive comments about how to change > it is really making me tired. Now that's a first... [sic] ] > It's good to see you still have a sense of humor. Yes, it really is me. BTW, you should have three new PR. My hope is people can lighten up. As for bashing, I don't see that ending soon. Advocacy has a real attitude, however, at least, doc talks to people. Advoc talks at people. 'nuff politics. >* thepinkpages@email.com (thepinkpages@email.com) [990702 22:47]: >> From the previous message you'll see >> that the reviewers(?) message was unclear. > >mpp's message was perfectly clear to me. He said that pr 12486 is like the >one you submitted and whatever the outcome of that one, it will also cover >this one. > Sorry, to report, if this was clear I would have not asked. I am not asking to start shit, you'll know when I'm starting shit (after you know me a while); I asked precisely because I did not know. Further the last reponse, now posted on freebsd-doc indicates the reviewer does not intend to take the issue seriously. You'll see I have. The new PRs have scripts to reproduce the errors and reproduce the fixes. One of the problems is the the remapping/renaming of certain utilities. Although now I see the PRs have move. I need sleep as well, so if you don't mind I'll pick this up tommorrow. >> Further, this message is less clear. > >You are right, this message you wrote is less clear. > >> Apparently, the PR has changed states, >> as per the reviewer(?). However the >> response document is unclear, terse >> and confusing. > >The response is clear, precise and to point, not distracting from the issue >and whatever information needed to get the point across (too bad about the >typo though, but that's nitpicking). > >> Clearness can be accomplished by adding >> "Severity" information from that >> field. Additionally this information >> should be noted in the reponse with >> "State-Changed-Why" > >What good does adding the Severity subfield to the State-Changed-Why section >do? > >The send-pr/GNATS system was developed for people who cared to consult the >database so that they see what has been happening with the pr, and thus >Severity is also shown when one queries the pr. Adding Severity [again] to >the response only clutters the response with unrelated information which is >clearly available from the GNATS database. > >> Terseness is address in the previous >> paragraph. With conviction we state >> that a pre-scribed answer should >> suffice; with the caveout that this >> does not cover all circumstances. >> >> Confusion could be removed by >> adding a Natural Language interface >> response system. That is to say, >> the current response is a techincal >> orthocratic response, which seems >> clear for accounting/regression >> testing purposes. However, an additional >> field reponding in a native (English, >> Japanese, Spanish, etc.) language >> would be preferable. > >This is not the FreeBSD Helpdesk. Ask your questions on >questions@freebsd.org. This database is intended for technical content and >tracking of the problem with regard to the solution and fixes both sides >try to create resulting from the problem submitted. > >> Possible Solutions: >> Such a system would take all fields >> modified and convert the information >> into comprehensive and comprehendable >> statement that could be review by >> reviewer, thereby alliveating(sp?) >> the reviewer, comitter, fixer and >> reporter from miscommuncation because >> of a lack of information, >> or from miscommunication because of >> an inconsitent response. The caveout >> being that the system would be spending >> MORE time in policy and review than >> in human interaction, which is of >> benefit to the entire process. > >Would you care to rephrase the above as I do not see what you are getting at. >A very large amount of the pr's, I guess about 75%, gets evaluated correctly >without miscommunication whatsoever. About 20% gets solved right away. The >remaining 5% are either pilot errors, personal reminders, useless pr's and >other cruft gathered. > >> Cost: >> This type of system would demand a >> person familar with a G5 language >> or language of similar properties >> (ie, Prolog, Dylan, Smalltalk). >> Resource requirements are those >> consumed by the needed interface(s). > >A survey from my Tk-GNATS on my locally synched freefall GNATS database >shows that of the roughly 12700 pr's less than 1% is submitted erroneously. >Clearly you are the first to state having problem with the system. This >tends to make me think you just don't understand what it is for and how it >is used. I kindly point you to the GNATS documentation which IIRC currently >resides on sourceware.cygnus.com. > >Adding unnecessary bloat of using a G5 language into a tool designed for >the tracking of problems submitted against a codebase is IMHO utter bollocks. > >> Benefits have been stated. > >I don't see any benefits from the above statements. Feel free to make more >concise and clear statements and not some half thought out idea without >proper consulting the available pr systems documentation out there. > >> My involvement: >> As per above, the NL interface >> could be accomplished. I am willing >> to write, maintain and update such >> a program. This would include documentaion, >> web interfaces, database interface and >> components needed for minimal use. >> I prefer PROLOG. > >Documentation, web interfaces, database interfaces and components already >exist, meet expectations or are in the prospect of being rewritten for new >workflow systems tuned to BSD development models. I once again note that the >pr system is NOT (that is NOT) intended for question related submissions. > >> Your involvement: >> Should this seen a reasonable do-able >> thing. Policy review must be set >> down by someone other than myself. >> The aforementioned revisions to >> GNATS must be accomplished by someone >> other than myself. > >Policy has indicated that GNATS is sufficient for current use. Work is >underway to construct replacement programs. > >> Lastly, this would be an opportunity >> to add other features. Your response >> appreciated. > >With this my response, which is not the official status of the Project, but >merely my rather intense involvement using the system and being aware of >other likewise systems and their documentation. > ----------------------------------------------- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message