[ZWeb] Zope Collector policies?
lists at zopyx.com
Wed Apr 12 00:44:42 EDT 2006
--On 11. April 2006 23:00:01 +0200 Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar
<crobbenhaar at web.de> wrote:
> I feel there is a mismatch between the policies for the Zope collectors
> the text on the entry page of these collectors, which seems to frustrate
> users and the developers caring about the collectors.
> are welcome; instead there seems to be a strict policy about submissions
> - 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
> - 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 &
> 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
> mailing list before reporting a bug.
> I think its better to tell people in advance that to have to tell them
> 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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-web/attachments/20060412/306ceb1a/attachment.bin
More information about the Zope-web